First well-documented study showing the transformation of a long-lasti

[Canuck E Stan]

UC DAVIS-Friday,January 5, 2007.

Scientists research stretches of global warming, cooling

Fossil studies helped determine sea levels at various times

A UC Davis scientist and other researchers examining the past for clues to the present are suggesting that global warming and cooling have run in cycles. They've uncovered evidence that some 300 million years ago a long-lasting ice age froze entire continents and then gave way 40 million years ago to a period of global warming that melted all the ice and left the Earth dry, dust-blown and covered only with sparse vegetation.

Scientists research stretches of global warming, cooling

In an interview, Kump noted that although some skeptics have questioned whether carbon dioxide is indeed the major "driver" in any global warming scenario, the evidence is now strong that it is. For the past 400,000 years, he said, atmospheric levels of the gas have ranged naturally from 180 to 280 parts per million, while today's "human perturbed" level has already risen to about 370 parts per million.

"This study," he said of the report in Science, "clearly shows how a period of strong warming came at the end of a long, intensely glacial period -- and we're breaking out of another million-year glacial period again right now."

"Everything old is new again" or how about....there's nothing new under the sun.

Or how about Same old,same old.

Whatever you want to say about it, it's been here before.

[Canuck E Stan]

Where are the global greenies in rebuttal to this earth warming news.

Is this story invalid or not?

[mikedavid00]

Where are the global greenies in rebuttal to this earth warming news.

Is this story invalid or not?

I agree.

Canada shouldn't be prioritizing the environment. It's sad the CBC has the power it does.

[Canuck E Stan]

Global Warming Report-Jan.5,2007.

computer calculations by the team showed that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere must have swung back and forth between 250 parts per million to 2,000 parts per million, Montanez said.

In an interview, Kump noted that although some skeptics have questioned whether carbon dioxide is indeed the major "driver" in any global warming scenario, the evidence is now strong that it is. For the past 400,000 years, he said, atmospheric levels of the gas have ranged naturally from 180 to 280 parts per million, while today's "human perturbed" level has already risen to about 370 parts per million.

Earth's carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere ran from 250 parts per million to 2,000 parts per million.And in the past 400,000 years,carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere ran from 180 to 280 parts per million. Human Perturbment has risen the level to to 370 parts per million.

Given that we're talking about 400,000 years at a level of 180-280,

why would the projected year 2050 for correcting global warming in a country that only produces 2% of green house gases not be acceptable?

Nothing is going to change anyways.

[Catchme]

No one is responding I would assume, from environmental peoples, because you are taking what the study is saying and spinning it to something different and no one wants to debate something that is non-existant in the study in the first place!

Kump noted that although some skeptics have questioned whether carbon dioxide is indeed the major "driver" in any global warming scenario, the evidence is now strong that it is.

Can't get much clearer than that can you? Carbon dioxide is indeed the major driver in any global warming scenario!

Then he goes on to say:

For the past 400,000 years, he said, atmospheric levels of the gas have ranged naturally from 180 to 280 parts per million, while today's "human perturbed" level has already risen to about 370 parts per million.

By human perturbed level he means carbon dioxide created by humans NOT occuring naturally. This means that humans are contributing an extra 370 parts per million, over and above naturally occuring carbon dioxide, and all since the advent of fossil fuel use in just a hundred or so years.

What this all mean is: the increased carbon dioxide build up, this report says, is caused by humans, and in turn is causing accelerated global warming which will turn the world into a dust bowl 10's of thousands of years, at least, before it would have natually occured.

The report IS NOT saying it would've happened or will happen anyway if nothing is done to reduce carbon dioxide. It is saying humans are forcing it upon the planet quicker than it would've happened naturally, as I said by 10's of thousands of years. Further it also saying that elevated carbon dioxide levels, and fluctuations in it, caused weird weather, and that means the elevated carbon dioxide levels caused by humans is causing weird weather today. If the levels were lower there would be less weird weather and less glacial melt.

[Who's Doing What?]

By human perturbed level he means carbon dioxide created by humans NOT occuring naturally. This means that humans are contributing an extra 370 parts per million, over and above naturally occuring carbon dioxide, and all since the advent of fossil fuel use in just a hundred or so years.

Acutally I think the author means that the CO2 Level as a whole is at 370 PPM. Not just the Human contribution. Even so at 90 PPM above the highest natural occurance in the last 400,000 years still means an increase of 32%.

[Riverwind]

By human perturbed level he means carbon dioxide created by humans NOT occurring naturally. This means that humans are contributing an extra 370 parts per million, over and above naturally occurring carbon dioxide, and all since the advent of fossil fuel use in just a hundred or so years.

I have seen charts of C02 emissions vs. population over the 10,000 years. C02 levels track the human population almost exactly - i.e. the C02 level dropped significantly during the plague in Europe in the middle ages and the small pox epidemic in North America in the 1500s. It has increased exponentially in the last century because the human population also increased exponentially. This implies that the only really effective way to reduce the amount of CO2 emitted is to reduce the number of humans. Unfortunately, the only practical way to do that is to wait until mother nature gets around to doing it.

[Canuck E Stan]

Actually I think the author means that the CO2 Level as a whole is at 370 PPM. Not just the Human contribution. Even so at 90 PPM above the highest natural occurance in the last 400,000 years still means an increase of 32%.

but also remember the level have been up as high as 2000 ppm during the earth's history. And this green-house/ ice- house thing has occurred over and over again though billions of years.

During the long Paleozoic ice age, vast continental ice sheets were many miles thick on southern Gondwana, while in the far north, the ocean must have been covered with miles upon miles of broad sea ice, Montanez said.

Then carbon dioxide gas, emerging into the atmosphere from minerals and weathered rocks, volcanoes and carbonates in the seas, began to increase sporadically, and what had been a continuously frozen continent began to thaw.

Computer calculations by the team showed that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere must have swung back and forth between 250 parts per million to 2,000 parts per million, Montanez said.

So from ice-house to green-house the levels rose as much as 2000 ppm

"This study," he said of the report in Science, "clearly shows how a period of strong warming came at the end of a long, intensely glacial period -- and we're breaking out of another million-year glacial period again right now.

And it's happening again after a million years of ice-house.

Given that we're talking about 400,000 years at a level of 180-280,

why would the projected year 2050 for correcting global warming in a country that only produces 2% of green house gases not be acceptable?

So I pose the question again, why, with a country that produces only 2% of these gases is the year 2050 not acceptable time frame for reducing Canada's share? This was the year the Environment Committe in Ottawa came up with,the Liberals came up with, and the government came up with.

Should we do something about the mess we create? Absolutely.

Going into Panic mode and fear mongering the public into thinking the end is near,absolutely not.

Catchme

The report IS NOT saying it would've happened or will happen anyway if nothing is done to reduce carbon dioxide. It is saying humans are forcing it upon the planet quicker than it would've happened naturally, as I said by 10's of thousands of years. Further it also saying that elevated carbon dioxide levels, and fluctuations in it, caused weird weather, and that means the elevated carbon dioxide levels caused by humans is causing weird weather today. If the levels were lower there would be less weird weather and less glacial melt.

10's of thousands of years?.......carbon dioxide levels caused wierd weather?......you said this, not the report

Wierd weather maybe to you, but maybe just a normal progression of the earth for the next million years.

"People with a mission to save the earth want the earth to seem worse than it is so their mission will look more important."

O'Rourke, P.J. (1994)

[Catchme]

By human perturbed level he means carbon dioxide created by humans NOT occuring naturally. This means that humans are contributing an extra 370 parts per million, over and above naturally occuring carbon dioxide, and all since the advent of fossil fuel use in just a hundred or so years.

Acutally I think the author means that the CO2 Level as a whole is at 370 PPM. Not just the Human contribution. Even so at 90 PPM above the highest natural occurance in the last 400,000 years still means an increase of 32%.

At first I thought the same thing and came to the 90PPM minimum increase too, but then I read it again, and thought perhaps it actually differentiated between naturally occuring and human perturbed..

For the past 400,000 years, he said, atmospheric levels of the gas have ranged naturally from 180 to 280 parts per million, while today's "human perturbed" level has already risen to about 370 parts per million.

He speaks first about the natually occuring levels range, and then juxpositioned that with humans perturbed level has already risen to 370PPM. But now having read it yet again several times I am not sure.

Though either way the amount is significant, the 32% increase that 90PPM signifies is a astounding amount. However, if it is 370PPM on top of the naturally occuring, were looking at 200% imax ncreases and that is horrifying.

Admittedly, I was/am more comfortable with the 90PPM and want it to be that.

[Catchme]

Yes canuck E Stan the weird weather was my paraphrasing of this comment from the report:

It was a highly unstable period of climate change, marked by millions of years when temperatures yo-yoed up and down as the atmosphere's natural levels of carbon dioxide, the major heat-trapping greenhouse gas, rose and fell wildly, says Montanez.

Montanez led a team of researchers that gathered evidence of fluctuations in ancient carbon dioxide levels by analyzing fossil plant leaves and weathered rocks throughout the American Southwest, ice cores in Antarctica, Australian fossils, and coal formations in China

Unstable climate change would be weird weather systems or rather if you will unstable weather systems. matter of semantics only.

2050 is not acceptable because something needs to be done NOW, not in 50 years. Just why would we wait 50 years tell me if we know this now?

[Riverwind]

2050 is not acceptable because something needs to be done NOW, not in 50 years. Just why would we wait 50 years tell me if we know this now?

You are assuming that something can be done. No matter what we do keeping 9-10 billion humans alive is going to emit a huge amount of carbon. We could completely shutdown our economy and the carbon savings would be a drop in the bucket compared to the extra emissions coming from the 3rd world population boom.

[jacobhelliwell]

With the amount of people on the earth we really can't do much. However, we can work on other greenhouse gases and other polutants that are also causeing the acceleration of global warming. Not to mention the amount of trees we are cutting down. Trees are a vital part of turning carbon dioxide back to oxygen. If we continue to clear cut them and waste materials that are made from them, we are going to continue to worsen the state of the planet instead of at least slowing the cooling/heating trend down.

[sharkman]

Riverwind, that's what I'm concerned about, third world countries and emerging economies like China. Countries like Canada have regulations so strict for cars and energy production already, then you have China, which has plans to build 40 new NUCLEAR REACTORS in the next 15 years, and those concerned with environmentalism in general simply ignore these huge issues and point at Canada as though we are the culprit.

[Riverwind]

However, we can work on other greenhouse gases and other polutants that are also causeing the acceleration of global warming.

The biggest problems we will face in the future is a shortage of energy and water. The best way to address this issue is to encourage energy and water conservation. In many cases, conservation will also reduce GHGs, however, reducing GHGs for the sake of reducing GHGs is a waste of money.

Not to mention the amount of trees we are cutting down. Trees are a vital part of turning carbon dioxide back to oxygen.

Most of Canada's boral forests will be gone in 30 years thanks to the pine beetle - not humans. We have been fighting the beetle as much as possible but it is likely an unstoppable force of nature.

[Canuck E Stan]

Yes canuck E Stan the weird weather was my paraphrasing of this comment from the report:

It was a highly unstable period of climate change, marked by millions of years when temperatures yo-yoed up and down as the atmosphere's natural levels of carbon dioxide, the major heat-trapping greenhouse gas, rose and fell wildly, says Montanez.

Montanez led a team of researchers that gathered evidence of fluctuations in ancient carbon dioxide levels by analyzing fossil plant leaves and weathered rocks throughout the American Southwest, ice cores in Antarctica, Australian fossils, and coal formations in China

Unstable climate change would be weird weather systems or rather if you will unstable weather systems. matter of semantics only.

2050 is not acceptable because something needs to be done NOW, not in 50 years. Just why would we wait 50 years tell me if we know this now?

Put your semantics in relation to what was said.

marked by millions of years when temperatures yo-yoed up and down

That's millions(like more than one) of years. Not the minisule number of years in your lifetime.

We don't even have a clue what normal patterns of climate is because of the millions, if not billions of years the earth is old.

So 2050 is not acceptable because you want it NOW. There are lots of things I would like NOW, but I can't get NOW.

If we plan over a reasonable period of time we will get the job done, with a set goal we can get there.

This date was presented by all the parties in their environmental assessment, probably because the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development came up with it.

Which party will give it to you NOW and how will they do it?

Don't hear anything from anybody except they don't like the date.

Who's different,and can plan the changes without overly disrupting Canadian life to the extreme?

But then again like you, everybody wants it NOW.

[sharkman]

This study is an eye opening revelation that will no doubt have proponents of Global Warming scrambling to come up with brand new 'studies' that are in direct disagreement with this one. Al Gore himself is probably leading the charge right now, hunkered down in a board room with heavy weights like the Sierra Club, unplugging the phones and faxes, strategizing on how to smear the authors of this particular study and so on.

[Electric Monk]

Sharkman, that article does not mean what you think it does.

Quote "In an interview, Kump noted that although some skeptics have questioned whether carbon dioxide is indeed the major "driver" in any global warming scenario, the evidence is now strong that it is. For the past 400,000 years, he said, atmospheric levels of the gas have ranged naturally from 180 to 280 parts per million, while today's "human perturbed" level has already risen to about 370 parts per million."

[Catchme]

This study is an eye opening revelation that will no doubt have proponents of Global Warming scrambling to come up with brand new 'studies' that are in direct disagreement with this one. Al Gore himself is probably leading the charge right now, hunkered down in a board room with heavy weights like the Sierra Club, unplugging the phones and faxes, strategizing on how to smear the authors of this particular study and so on.

What? This study supports exactly what they have been saying all along, did you not read the whole thread? Al Gore and The Sierra Club will be taking this report to the masses and saying; "see we were right".

Carbon Dioxide, as produced by humans, significantly impacts upon the environment causing global warming is now a fact because of this study.

Environmentalists will be taking this study to the bank, as the study also shows is that carbon dioxide emissions have gone up at least 90PPM/32% increase or as much as 320PPM/ 200% increase since the advent of burning fossil fuels for industry and transportation. That is in a 100years as opposed to millions, or even 10's of thousands of years, that the study shows global warming has previously has taken in the Global history with just naturally occuring increases in Carbon Dioxide only.

When this study is combined with others, it will show we will be in serious problems globally by 2050, if something is not done soon to decrease emissions globally. Water shortages will be world wide, countries will be gone because of rising oceans, economies will fail world wide.

The Stern Report out of Britian detailed all of this, plus more. And that Report was based upon solid speculation, not the concrete proof this report makes. Though scientific speculation has long been close to what this study found.

[Riverwind]

When this study is combined with others, it will show we will be in serious problems globally by 2050, if something is not done soon to decrease emissions globally. Water shortages will be world wide, countries will be gone because of rising oceans, economies will fail world wide.

Wrong - we will be serious trouble if we don't reduce world population radically by 2050. The trouble we can't do that so we have people urging us to chase after will-o-wisps called GHGs instead of looking at the real problem: too many humans.

[Catchme]

When this study is combined with others, it will show we will be in serious problems globally by 2050, if something is not done soon to decrease emissions globally. Water shortages will be world wide, countries will be gone because of rising oceans, economies will fail world wide.

Wrong - we will be serious trouble if we don't reduce world population radically by 2050. The trouble we can't do that so we have people urging us to chase after will-o-wisps called GHGs instead of looking at the real problem: too many humans.

Why do we have to decrease the world's population, when we can reduce Carbon Dioxide emissions?

And are you volunteering to reduce yourself, so others can survive instead of reducing emissions? Or just who are you advocating be radically reduced instead of emissions?

[Riverwind]

Why do we have to decrease the world's population, when we can reduce Carbon Dioxide emissions?

Look at the math:

India per capita produces 1/10th of the GHGs that Canada produces per capita.

But India's population is going up by 20-30 million per year.

That means that even if Canada reduced its emissions by 30% (a difficult target) all of the benefits of that reduction would be negated by 3 years of population growth in India.

That calculation assumes that India's per capita GHG emissions do not increase.

Bottom line: reducing GHGs for the sake of reducing GHGs is a waste of effort. What we need to focus on is conservation of energy and water and preparing the country for the consequences of global warming. We also need to find a replacement for oil.

And are you volunteering to reduce yourself, so others can survive instead of reducing emissions? Or just who are you advocating be radically reduced instead of emissions?

Mother nature will do the dirty work eventually. Whether we go into a panic trying to reduce GHGs now or not won't make one iota of a difference in the long run.

[Catchme]

Look at the math:

India per capita produces 1/10th of the GHGs that Canada produces per capita.

But India's population is going up by 20-30 million per year.

This makes no sense, as the math shows that India has 1.1 billion people but have only 1/10 the GHG emissions. This means they are doing better than us by a long shot, even if their population increases 20-30 million per year. This means we are bigger contributors to the problem than they are.

That means that even if Canada reduced its emissions by 30% (a difficult target) all of the benefits of that reduction would be negated by 3 years of population growth in India.

That calculation assumes that India's per capita GHG emissions do not increase

Canada is a bigger contributor to the problem than India. We need to take care of our business of being extreme polluters before we say: "if we fix what we are doing it makes no differnce as India is increasing it population and will negate our efforts. So not realize how absurb that sounds? Using India's population increase as a reson NOT to fix our mass polluting? I am shocked.

Bottom line: reducing GHGs for the sake of reducing GHGs is a waste of effort. What we need to focus on is conservation of energy and water and preparing the country for the consequences of global warming. We also need to find a replacement for oil.

I agree with finding a replacement for oil.

However, building a fire wall around Canada preparing for the consequences "of our actions inflicting the world" all because some think we have the water and resources to pollute all we want, and then ride it out while the rest of the world suffers is unbelievable.

,

Mother nature will do the dirty work eventually. Whether we go into a panic trying to reduce GHGs now or not won't make one iota of a difference in the long run.

I disagree it will make a difference, and it seems like mother nature should be getting rid of the worst polluters, which is us.

[geoffrey]

This makes no sense, as the math shows that India has 1.1 billion people but have only 1/10 the GHG emissions. This means they are doing better than us by a long shot, even if their population increases 20-30 million per year. This means we are bigger contributors to the problem than they are.

That's easy when your a third world country, no one goes to work let alone drives to work, and cities are larger reducing the transportation impact on GHG (a major factor in Canada). The average temperature in India is what, 30 degrees? I doubt if they have the home heating that we do. We can reduce our levels to India no problem, we've got to live like them though. And I choose not to.

I agree with finding a replacement for oil.

As of today, no reasonable alternative exists. It's not only oil to power our energy demands... what about plastic? Look around the room your in right now, how many petroleum products do you see? Double that number and your likely close to the real value.

I disagree it will make a difference, and it seems like mother nature should be getting rid of the worst polluters, which is us.

Mother nature has no conscious thought... Canada has zero impact in the big picture... and current climate events are only attributed to global warming by the most uninformed in the theory.

[Riverwind]

This makes no sense, as the math shows that India has 1.1 billion people but have only 1/10 the GHG emissions.

India has 1/10 the PER CAPITA emissions. Their TOTAL emissions are at least 3 times that of Canada.

This means we are bigger contributors to the problem than they are.

No we are not. They are much bigger contributors to the GHG problem. That is why a 30% reduction in our emissions will be negated by the population increase in India.

Canada is a bigger contributor to the problem than India.

The problem is created by the number of humans on the planet. Those of us living in rich countries can afford to splurge on expensive non-GHG emitting technologies. Countries without that wealth will need to do whatever they can to feed their people. If that means burning dirty coal then they will burn dirty coal. No matter what we do it is over population that is the real source of the GHG problem.

However, building a fire wall around Canada preparing for the consequences "of our actions inflicting the world" all because some think we have the water and resources to pollute all we want, and then ride it out while the rest of the world suffers is unbelievable.

The job of the Canadian gov't is to look after Canadians. Our gov't should never waste time and money reducing GHGs for the sake of GHGs when it could be building infrastructure to deal with the inevitable.

That said, many conservation measures will reduce GHGs so we should be able to reduce our GHGs. The only point that I am making is reduciing GHGs should be secondary priority to conservation and infrastructure improvements.

[Canuck E Stan]

I disagree it will make a difference, and it seems like mother nature should be getting rid of the worst polluters, which is us.

Yes Virginia,there is a Santa Claus, and if only Dorthy could find her shoes.

then we could get rid of all of our 2% share of the overall problem, and the whole world will become a better place for all the Kings horses and all the Kings men.