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.
Oh look! It's one of those propaganda web pages I was complaining about earlier!
#1. The majority of plant species evolved on Earth during a time when the sun was cooler. Apparently, Earth would have likely remained frozen without all that C02. I don't understand most of this stuff, but here you go: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/...oo-little-co2/
All I know is that I've heard that the sun would have been cooler in the far past from multiple sources, and it's in its nature to brighten with time.
#2. It doesn't matter if colder temperatures are worse...because nobody's saying Earth is cooling, or going to cool much, except in local areas.
#3. Yes there is evidence that elevated C02 levels harm humans...at least if it happens rapidly, just like with most rapid environmental changes. It warms up the Earth, which causes Earth's oceans to push more C02 into the atmosphere, which has traditionally been associated with interglacial periods...except more C02 is now in the atmosphere than has been there in recent interglacial periods. It also acidifies Earth's oceans. According to this, C02 levels haven't been this high in 3 million years https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...-mct040319.php
Every year we pump many times more C02 into the atmosphere than volcanoes, according to the United States Geological Survey:
VANCOUVER, Wash. — On average, human activities put out in just three to five days, the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide that volcanoes produce globally each year. This is one of the messages detailed in a new article "Volcanic Versus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide" by Terrance Gerlach of the U.S. Geological Survey appearing in this week's issue of Eos, from the American Geophysical Union. "The most frequent question that I have gotten (and still get), in my 30 some years as a volcanic gas geochemist from the general public and from geoscientists working in fields outside of volcanology, is 'Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities?' Research findings indicate unequivocally that the answer to this question is "No"—anthropogenic CO2 emissions dwarf global volcanic CO2 emissions," said Gerlach. Gerlach looked at five published studies of present-day global volcanic CO2 emissions that give a range of results from a minimum of about one tenth of a billion, to a maximum of about half a billion metric tons of CO2 per year. Gerlach used the figure of about one-quarter of a billion metric tons of volcanic CO2 per year to make his comparisons. The published projected anthropogenic CO2 emission rate for 2010 is about 35 billion metric tons per year. Gerlach's calculations suggest present-day annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions may exceed the CO2 output of one or more supereruptions per year. Supereruptions are extremely rare with recurrence intervals of 100,000-200,000 years; none have occurred historically, the most recent examples being the Toba eruption 74,000 years ago in Indonesia and the Yellowstone caldera eruption in the United States 2 million years ago. As in all fields of scientific research, there continues to be efforts to improve estimates and reduce uncertainties about how much CO2 is released from the mid-ocean ridges, from volcanic arcs, or from hot spot volcanoes, but agreement exists among volcanic gas scientists about the significantly smaller amount of volcanic CO2 compared to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. https://archive.usgs.gov/archive/sit...p-ID=2827.html
Normally, what happens during interglacial periods is Earth begins warming, presumably due to cyclical changes in Earth's position and rotation in the solar system. After Earth begins warming, C02 increases, presumably due to oceans warming and outgassing C02. After that though, the rate of C02 increase in the atmosphere remains pretty closely tied with the rate of temperature increase in the atmosphere.
I thought I remembered a graph that showed that above relationship between interglacial periods and C02 somewhere, with some links, but I can't seem to find that.
In any case...we're just getting started. I don't really hear ideas about Earth's temperature increasing to the point of becoming like Venus...but think about this though: If an area is humid enough, it really doesn't need to be very hot to be uninhabitable. I've read that at 130 degrees F the ease of human survival becomes more of a problem. That could result in some big problems for anyone who has to work outdoors. Places in America have hit 130 degrees Fahrenheit before...and we've got to be concerned about future centuries too, not just this one. There are feedback loops that will cause the Earth to heat up before it cools down most likely, such as the ice caps melting and not reflecting as much sunlight back, warmer temperatures causing the atmosphere to be more humid (although more clouds may reflect sunlight away too). There is also the aforementioned ocean outgassing ocean outgassing of C02. Then there's the fact that there is a large quantity of methane beneath Antarctica that could be released if enough of Antarctica melts. Aside from increased cloud cover...I can't think of many natural occurrences that would reduce Earth's temperature that I've heard of. Volcanic activity would temporarily reflect sunlight away...but then just add more C02 to the atmosphere. More plants could absorb more of it, but they're reducing in number rather than increasing.
On top of that...even if we totally stopped using oil and coal, our livestock would still be releasing methane.
So, Earth's temperature will probably just keep increasing perpetually unless we develop some magical technology to remedy that, or are willing to engage in global cooperation and do things like taking risks such as seeding Earth's oceans with iron to stimulate phytoplankton growth to absorb more C02.
I'm not so much worrying about Venusian conditions as having summers our descendents literally can't work outside in without risking death because even sweating won't cool us enough...or having entire nations of people flee their scorched wasteland homelands...probably to come here.
this interglacial period will be like the rest of the interglacial periods, we will continue to warm until the peak...(generally around a global average of 74'f)....
then we will start cooling into an ice age (glacial period)
this has happened nearly 2 dozen times in the last 4 billion years
this interglacial period will be like the rest of the interglacial periods, we will continue to warm until the peak...(generally around a global average of 74'f)....
then we will start cooling into an ice age (glacial period)
this has happened nearly 2 dozen times in the last 4 billion years
its natural baby...
Except humans are putting extra C02 into the atmosphere that wouldn't usually be there...so it isn't natural. Whatever natural cycles occur are going to be modified by human behavior.
Except humans are putting extra C02 into the atmosphere that wouldn't usually be there...so it isn't natural. Whatever natural cycles occur are going to be modified by human behavior.
the "modification" is less than 5%
so the interglacial period "might" last a few years longer...actually a good thing as glacial periods are not good for mammals/animals
still will be in the 'normal' window of time
so the interglacial period "might" be 1-2'f warmer...still put us in the beautiful/plentiful growing zone of tropical
still will be in the normal window for temps...(72'f- 75'f)
Oh look! It's one of those propaganda web pages I was complaining about earlier!
#1. The majority of plant species evolved on Earth during a time when the sun was cooler. Apparently, Earth would have likely remained frozen without all that C02. I don't understand most of this stuff, but here you go: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/...oo-little-co2/
All I know is that I've heard that the sun would have been cooler in the far past from multiple sources, and it's in its nature to brighten with time.
#2. It doesn't matter if colder temperatures are worse...because nobody's saying Earth is cooling, or going to cool much, except in local areas.
#3. Yes there is evidence that elevated C02 levels harm humans...at least if it happens rapidly, just like with most rapid environmental changes. It warms up the Earth, which causes Earth's oceans to push more C02 into the atmosphere, which has traditionally been associated with interglacial periods...except more C02 is now in the atmosphere than has been there in recent interglacial periods. It also acidifies Earth's oceans. According to this, C02 levels haven't been this high in 3 million years https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...-mct040319.php
Every year we pump many times more C02 into the atmosphere than volcanoes, according to the United States Geological Survey:
VANCOUVER, Wash. — On average, human activities put out in just three to five days, the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide that volcanoes produce globally each year. This is one of the messages detailed in a new article "Volcanic Versus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide" by Terrance Gerlach of the U.S. Geological Survey appearing in this week's issue of Eos, from the American Geophysical Union. "The most frequent question that I have gotten (and still get), in my 30 some years as a volcanic gas geochemist from the general public and from geoscientists working in fields outside of volcanology, is 'Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities?' Research findings indicate unequivocally that the answer to this question is "No"—anthropogenic CO2 emissions dwarf global volcanic CO2 emissions," said Gerlach. Gerlach looked at five published studies of present-day global volcanic CO2 emissions that give a range of results from a minimum of about one tenth of a billion, to a maximum of about half a billion metric tons of CO2 per year. Gerlach used the figure of about one-quarter of a billion metric tons of volcanic CO2 per year to make his comparisons. The published projected anthropogenic CO2 emission rate for 2010 is about 35 billion metric tons per year. Gerlach's calculations suggest present-day annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions may exceed the CO2 output of one or more supereruptions per year. Supereruptions are extremely rare with recurrence intervals of 100,000-200,000 years; none have occurred historically, the most recent examples being the Toba eruption 74,000 years ago in Indonesia and the Yellowstone caldera eruption in the United States 2 million years ago. As in all fields of scientific research, there continues to be efforts to improve estimates and reduce uncertainties about how much CO2 is released from the mid-ocean ridges, from volcanic arcs, or from hot spot volcanoes, but agreement exists among volcanic gas scientists about the significantly smaller amount of volcanic CO2 compared to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. https://archive.usgs.gov/archive/sit...p-ID=2827.html
Normally, what happens during interglacial periods is Earth begins warming, presumably due to cyclical changes in Earth's position and rotation in the solar system. After Earth begins warming, C02 increases, presumably due to oceans warming and outgassing C02. After that though, the rate of C02 increase in the atmosphere remains pretty closely tied with the rate of temperature increase in the atmosphere.
I thought I remembered a graph that showed that above relationship between interglacial periods and C02 somewhere, with some links, but I can't seem to find that.
In any case...we're just getting started. I don't really hear ideas about Earth's temperature increasing to the point of becoming like Venus...but think about this though: If an area is humid enough, it really doesn't need to be very hot to be uninhabitable. I've read that at 130 degrees F the ease of human survival becomes more of a problem. That could result in some big problems for anyone who has to work outdoors. Places in America have hit 130 degrees Fahrenheit before...and we've got to be concerned about future centuries too, not just this one. There are feedback loops that will cause the Earth to heat up before it cools down most likely, such as the ice caps melting and not reflecting as much sunlight back, warmer temperatures causing the atmosphere to be more humid (although more clouds may reflect sunlight away too). There is also the aforementioned ocean outgassing ocean outgassing of C02. Then there's the fact that there is a large quantity of methane beneath Antarctica that could be released if enough of Antarctica melts. Aside from increased cloud cover...I can't think of many natural occurrences that would reduce Earth's temperature that I've heard of. Volcanic activity would temporarily reflect sunlight away...but then just add more C02 to the atmosphere. More plants could absorb more of it, but they're reducing in number rather than increasing.
On top of that...even if we totally stopped using oil and coal, our livestock would still be releasing methane.
So, Earth's temperature will probably just keep increasing perpetually unless we develop some magical technology to remedy that, or are willing to engage in global cooperation and do things like taking risks such as seeding Earth's oceans with iron to stimulate phytoplankton growth to absorb more C02.
I'm not so much worrying about Venusian conditions as having summers our descendents literally can't work outside in without risking death because even sweating won't cool us enough...or having entire nations of people flee their scorched wasteland homelands...probably to come here.
1. CO2 at current levels and even 20X these levels are innocuous to humans. There is no physiological impairment that occurs from these very, very small levels of CO2- NONE.
2. The pH of the ocean is 8.1- it is basic, not acidotic. CO2 can lower the pH of the ocean when it exceeds the buffering capacity. That has not occurred nor will it occur unless levels were massively higher. The pH of the oceans have decreased by .2 over the last 250 years.
3. All of the apocalyptic predictions by the AGW crowd are just predictions based on flawed modeling. The fossil evidence shows that there was no peril from higher CO2 levels- NONE. When the entire earth was tropical, a fantasy "Water World" did not exist in which mammals were made extinct due to global flooding.
4. Your contention that the earth's temperature will increase perpetually is completely wrong- the fossil record shows us otherwise. Your belief is a false liberal fantasy that has not basis in reality.
5. take a look at that big glowing gas ball in the sky (the sun). Do you think that might have something to do with temps?
Libs worry about things that are pure fantasy, while ignoring real threats. Why? Because it is a lazy man's means of expressing "concern". You don't have to do anything to "combat" a false threat. The AGW crowd does nothing- they still use central heat and air, drive cars, and use electricity.
Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial.
Skeptics vigorously criticize any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to refute global warming.
When dealing with man-made global warming skeptics always ask them these two questions.
Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?
I see there is a science forum. Perhaps this discussion would be more healthy and engage a broader audience of scientists if located in a science forum.
You are looking at this in the exact opposite fashion.
In rational, real science, one makes a hypothesis and disproves the null hypothesis i.e. they show with a statistical probability of less than .05 that other conditions are not creating the observed phenomenon. - That is the scientific method, which has ruled science and reason for 250 years.
Now we have AGW, which is the opposite of science. In AGW, a hypothesis is made and it is accepted as fact unless someone can provide 100% definitive evidence that it is not true.
Do you understand the difference? The latter is absurd (yet is what AGW claims is science) as one can make a ridiculous statement which cannot be disproven, then state it must be true!
This is why it is hilarious when the AGW crowd says that they "understand science" or "support science", as they have completely discarded and ignored the cornerstone of all legitimate science.
So for AGW to be an accepted hypothesis, one would have to show (at minimum) the following:
1. That solar activity is not responsible for "climate change"
2. That the orbit of the earth is not responsible for "climate change"
3. That the reduction in the earth's magnetic field is not responsible for "climate change"
4. That the wobble of the earth's orbit around the sun is not responsible for "climate change"
5. That there is no natural causes (independent of man) responsible for "climate change"
6. That there are no atmospheric gases other than CO2 (such as water) responsible for "climate change"
Prove all those with a p<.05 and you have a viable hypothesis.
Last edited by hawkeye2009; 06-11-2019 at 12:13 PM..
this interglacial period will be like the rest of the interglacial periods, we will continue to warm until the peak...(generally around a global average of 74'f)....
then we will start cooling into an ice age (glacial period)
this has happened nearly 2 dozen times in the last 4 billion years
its natural baby...
How do you explain that the planet was cooling for 4,000 years until the beginning of the industrial age, and since then has been heating rapidly?
How do you explain that the planet was cooling for 4,000 years until the beginning of the industrial age, and since then has been heating rapidly?
the planet was NOT cooling for 4000 years
The most recent glaciation began about 125,000 years ago and climaxed about 21,000 years ago. At this time, over 30% of the earth’s surface was covered by ice, and sea level was at least 125 meters lower than present ......we have been warming since....not a smooth sine wave of warming..... but very jagged
Plato (ancient Greece) about 2500 years ago was talking about the warming
The ancient Greek philosopher Plato, who lived in 427-347 BC, wrote about major climate changes known in his day. In the dialogue, "Timaeus," he argued global warming occurs at regular intervals, often leading to great floods. Said Plato, "When... the gods purge the Earth with a deluge of water, the survivors... are herdsmen and shepherds who dwell on the mountains. But those who... live in cities are carried by the rivers into the sea."
In the dialogue, "Critias," Plato wrote about weather-related geological changes. He referred to "formidable deluges" that washed away all the top soil, turning the land into a "skeleton of a body wasted by disease." What were now plains had once been covered with rich soil, Plato said, and barren mountains were once covered with trees. The yearly "water from Zeus" had been lost, he went on, creating deserts where the land was once productive.
Plato's student, Aristotle, who lived from 384 BC to 322 BC, also recorded evidence of global warming in his work, "Meteorologica." He noted that in the time of the Trojan War, the land of Argos was marshy and unarable, while that of Mycenae was temperate and fertile. "But now the opposite is the case," Aristotle wrote. "The land of Mycenae has become completely dry and barren, while the Argive land that was formerly barren, owing to the water has now become fruitful." He observed the same phenomenon elsewhere covering large regions and nations
so just how were we cooling for 4000 years if the last glacial period ended ~20,000 years ago....and 2500 years ago ancient Greeks were talking about warming
In the first century AD, an ancient Roman named Columella wrote an agricultural treatise called, "De re rustica." In it, he discussed global warming that had turned areas once too cold for agriculture into thriving farm communities. Columella cites an authority named Saserna who recorded many such cases. According to Saserna, "regions which formerly, because of the unremitting severity of winter, could not safeguard any shoot of the vine or the olive planted in them, now that the earlier coldness has abated and weather is becoming more clement, produce olive harvests and the vintages of Bacchus [wine] in greatest abundance."
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.
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.
