Do the proponents of Global Warming not take paleoclimate into consideration?

Question

CO2 levels have been SIGNIFICANTLY higher in the past and, hell, during the earliest times, there were no fossil fuels around yet to be exploited....

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

I don't think many of you understand taht "Global Warming"---in this context--- refers to the rise in overall temperature due to anthropogenic causes. I also think it's preposterously arrogant for humankind to believe it is special enough to deserve eternal existence, therefore rendering any attempts to alleviate climate change as merely futile.

Answer 1

I have often wondered the same thing. I'm not saying it isn't happening, or that man has nothing to do with it, I just don't seriously think we're the sole source of the problem. Has anyone ever stopped to look at the gas emission of a volcanic eruption such as Krakatau in Indonesia?
Geologic tests have confirmed a much higher concentration of CO2 in the past then there has been since man showed up. If you want proof, go pull a Historical Geology textbook and start reading. Levels of CO2 in the atmosphere decrease whenever we have a period of global cooling (better known as an "Ice Age") because it becomes frozen in the ice. Then the world's climate is cool for a "little" while until the continental sheets begin to melt, freeing the CO2, which begins to warms up the climate even faster as more and more is released.
Now I'm not saying we're not contributing. I'm sure we are to some degree, just not to the degree everyone would like us to believe. The truth is, everything is interconnected. You could begin to argue that the reflectance off the ice as it begins to form spurs the chain reaction into a cooler period. We do need to be careful, but I don't think the responsibility is completely on us. I think we need to at least start planning for the inevitable geologic processes that are taking place.

Answer 2

don't get me incorrect, i think of AGW is organic religious bullshit AND the substitute of brand call from the definable 'international Warming' to the great umbrella 'climate substitute' became an fairly staggering little bit of masturbatory pseudo technological information yet... to be common, Warmons do recommend 'adverse' climate substitute. E.g. fewer or extra basic hurricanes do no longer in effective condition the Apocalyptic type. they are no longer basically finding for flooding & drought, they pick the worst in recorded historical past. So on an analogous time as their modern call substitute became in fact pushed with the help of a decade devoid of Warming, This decade will, with the help of Warmon protocol, be defined via fact the 'maximum well liked on record'. Now that 'record' is barely a hundred and sixty years. And it a reasonably good wager the Medieval & Roman sessions have been warmer nevertheless the Warmon challenge is 'maximum well liked' So yeah they're being weasels... yet those weasels are in seek of for 'substitute' it fairly is undesirable. Islands flooding & lifeless polar bears - no longer massive new croplands available in Siberia.

Answer 3

There was a time in the past when Greenhouse gases rose rapidly. It gave rise to a five degree C jump in temperature over the incredibly tiny time period of 40,000 years. This caused a massive release of methane hydrates (a form of fossil fuel) which pushed the temperature up another 5 degrees over the next 40,000 years.

The result was the permian extinctions - 95% of ALL life on Earth was wiped out and took eaons to recover.

Now we are contemplating a five degree rise in as infinitesmal a time period as just one century.

So yes, scientists raising the alarm over global warming pay very close attention to paleoclimatology. What we are doing now has never happened before, but the closest match nearly turned the planet into a lifeless wasteland.

Then again, maybe you think doing it faster is safer?

Answer 4

Of course they do.

CO2 works in two ways. It is both a source of warming, due to the greenhouse effect, and a product of warming, due to release from ocean waters as they warm.

There have been natural climate changes before, and there will be again. In past warmings CO2 has been released. It can't be any other way.

But this particular warming is driven by man's emissions of greenhouse gases, mostly CO2. The scientific data clearly shows that to be true.

Here's a very short summary of the data:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

and here's a more exhaustive analysis:

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

That considers the sun, of course. And finds it to be less than 10% of the problem.

People can argue by intuition or politics (what does Al Gore's personal life have to do with it?) or whatever. But this is science and the data decides. The data overwhelmingly supports man's responsibility for global warming. So the majority of scientists do too.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Answer 5

They can not take that into account because it is more evidence that disproves the LIE.

Also, the argument that CO2 is causes heat buildup and also causes more CO2 to be released into the atmosphere doesn't make sense because the earth would burn up.
The samples taken from the ice caps show that the CO2 levels were highest during the ICE Age periods and when they began to taper off the earth warmed back up.
Isn't that exactly the opposite of what global warmers are saying will happen?

As far as the speed of the cooling,or CO2 being released into the air, scientists found woolly mammoths that froze to death almost instantly, and still had food in there mouths they were still chewing.

Answer 6

I do take 'paleoclimate' into consideration and that's why I'm convinced that global warming is occuring.

You need to understand global warming and paleo-climatology before using it in an attempt to dispute global warming - it doesn't work.

To Nicholas: There are graphs that show higher levels of CO2 in the past, unfortunately if I include a link those that don't understand the dynamics of what's happening will seize upon it as 'proof' that global warming is a myth. It will be yet another example of distortion and misrepresentation.

Answer 7

I totally agree,your question is right and there data(used in the consensus/opinion not fact) comes from 1975 on,oh there scales for temperature go back,but they stress their most greenhouse leveles from 1975,because there opinion/consensus from 1945-1975 suggested the oppisite and they said we were heading back to another ice age,because during these years the global temperatures were falling(newsweek and the time magazine reported) and on their first earth day(april 21st) [people were holding up signs saying the new ice age was coming along with the no nukes signs and save the whales signs

Answer 8

Ok I see first that the source comes from a region where people still have an obvious economical interest in the coal industry.
Can you provide something similare from a phased-out coal mining area ?

Answer 9

Nope and they also ignore the fact that the sun's output has gone up by .15% in the last 30 years and Mars and Pluto are warming up also.