Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The last time the CO2 level was at 400ppm, sea levels were 80 feet higher. Where's the flooding?
"Current ratios of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere remain at levels not seen in more than 3 million years, when sea levels were as much as 80 feet higher than current levels."
The sea is rising, but it will take a very long time for enough ice to melt, and enough thermal expansion to occur in ocean waters to get an 80-foot rise. That couldn't happen for hundreds of years even in a worst case scenario.
The sea is rising, but it will take a very long time for enough ice to melt, and enough thermal expansion to occur in ocean waters to get an 80-foot rise. That couldn't happen for hundreds of years even in a worst case scenario.
but the sea is not really rising...
the land raises and falls.....research tetonic plates
Nope, you've got the quote wrong, but I applaud you for quoting James Hanson. I thought the conservatives hated him, but you must think he's pretty cool :
"Unless greenhouse emissions are curbed, average global temperatures can climb two to three degrees Celsius by 2100. The last time the earth was that warm, sea levels were 80 feet higher than today"
that depends on how its done. if it is done through government regulation, then yes saving the planet is bad for the economy. but if we do it right, through changing business models through consumer pressure, and get more green products on the market, then no it isnt.
The AGW scammers always like to start with a timeline for when we had low temps, or in this case low CO2, and then compare that to today, to present the scam.
For example, they like to start a graph for temperature at around 1850, during the Little Ice-Age and claim the warming is dramatic and alarming.
If the alarmists would use a wider range of temperature over time, then people would see that temps have been warmer then today, and by comparison, it's not all that warm today.
It's the same way with CO2, they use the scary sounding phrase "Not Seen in Three Million Years" because a graph would show that our planet's historically low levels of CO2 started 3 million years ago, and levels were much higher 3+ million years ago.
What's your point? No climate scientists or any legitimate scientist would ever claim we weren't warmer in the past. Anyone with general scientific knowledge knows our planet has been frozen and molten lava.....So be gone strawman.
The problem is........ our entire human civilization is set up for the climate we currently have, that is 6 billion and growing, modernizing population.
that depends on how its done. if it is done through government regulation, then yes saving the planet is bad for the economy. but if we do it right, through changing business models through consumer pressure, and get more green products on the market, then no it isnt.
Except for energy spikes that wreck havoc to the global economy...
Perhaps a.....gasp.... balanced approach with public and private sector involvement would be best?
Greg, I'm with you 100% on this one! Scraping a mile thick sheet of ice off your windshield would be a lot harder to deal with than palm trees around the Great Lakes! Once upon a time, there were polar bears in Illinois. It is no crisis that they are no longer there, know what I mean? Things change.
We had more snow yesterday, and they are predicting more snow for this coming weekend.
We had more snow yesterday, and they are predicting more snow for this coming weekend.
Have you ever heard of something called NAO?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.