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 message here is not that human-influenced climate change is a dangerous fact (that's well-established at this time among the scientists who study climate), but that even oil companies, Republicans and conservatives in general (with the exception of Tea Party members) are mostly recognizing that fact now, after many years of skepticism. Since American political conservatives have been the main roadblock in official recognition of the problem, this is a giant step forward. "The first step in solving a problem is to recognize that it does exist" - Zig Ziglar. The End of the Partisan Divide Over Climate Change - Forbes
Zig Ziglar is known for his rhetoric, not his scientific prowess.
He's wrong. Completely so. There is scientific support for the "global warming" nonsense at all.
What is now jungle and rain forest was once ice covered. What is desert was once lush, green forests. What is ice covered now was once rain forest and jungle. Facts that everyone agrees with.
What is the point of this hysteria?
Because human civilization depends on a stable climate.
"Direct measurement of past CO2 trapped in ice core bubbles show that the amount of atmospheric CO2 decreased during glacial periods (Figure 3), in part because more CO2 was stored in the deep ocean due to changes in either ocean mixing or biological activity. Lower CO2 levels weakened the atmosphere's greenhouse effect and helped to maintain low temperatures. Warming at the end of the glacial periods liberated CO2 from the ocean, which strengthened the atmosphere's greenhouse effect and contributed to further warming."
The yellow is the interglacial periods. The white areas are glacial periods. Normal earth for at least the past 350,000 years was a snowball with much of the earth's water trapped in ice. Is that what change deniers (those who deny the earth's climate changes) want or is that what they're hoping to save us all back into?
Human civilization has developed and prospered during a period of uncommon climatic stability. By spewing CO2 into the air so recklessly, we are risking the end of that stability.
There's also the fact that rapid warming events like the current one tend to lead to mass extinction events. Humans can adapt to these types of shifts, but other creatures can't... so on top of agriculture, disease and political instability, there is also the disruption of food chains to worry about.
During the Maunder minimum there were an unusually large number of cold winters in Europe. However, there is no evidence that this was a global phenomenon. Indeed, our research strongly suggests it was a regional phenomenon and that the colder winters in Europe would have been accompanied by warmer ones elsewhere, for example Greenland.
Calling this period of more frequent cold European winters a "Little Ice Age" or a "mini Ice Age" is hugely misleading as it implies Europe experienced unremitting cold throughout the Maunder minimum. This is completely wrong. A good example of why comes from the Central England Temperature (CET) record, which extends continuously back to 1659.
If we take the winter averages (December, January and February) we find the coldest winter on record was 1683/4 - right in the middle of the solar Maunder minimum. However just two years later, and still right in the middle of the Maunder minimum, we have the sixth warmest winter in the whole 353-year CET record.
What's more, there's no evidence that summers in the Maunder minimum were any colder than usual. This is not a "Little Ice Age" - it is not an ice age of any shape or form.
Human civilization has developed and prospered during a period of uncommon climatic stability. By spewing CO2 into the air so recklessly, we are risking the end of that stability.
There's also the fact that rapid warming events like the current one tend to lead to mass extinction events. Humans can adapt to these types of shifts, but other creatures can't... so on top of agriculture, disease and political instability, there is also the disruption of food chains to worry about.
You're having a hard time with the graph aren't you? Current temperatures are colder than all three of the previous interglacial periods in the graph.
As far as mass extinctions, you're going to have to prove that current warming trends will cause mass extinction because nothing in earth's history backs up that claim. Asteroids, volcanic eruptions, extensive ice growth... Those are real. 380 ppm of CO2 is nothing geologically speaking. That's considered a scare tactic and is a fallacy used to try and win an argument.
The minor blip of the so-called "Little Ice Age" wasn't a 'cause'.
So why don't you tell us what you think caused and ended the "Little Ice Age" and in what regions it occurred? And what relevance it has to the last 100 years?
You're having a hard time with the graph aren't you? Current temperatures are colder than all three of the previous interglacial periods in the graph.
As far as mass extinctions, you're going to have to prove that current warming trends will cause mass extinction because nothing in earth's history backs up that claim. Asteroids, volcanic eruptions, extensive ice growth... Those are real. 380 ppm of CO2 is nothing geologically speaking. That's considered a scare tactic and is a fallacy used to try and win an argument.
I think you need to have a closer look at that graph... and read the paper it comes from as well.
Is it global? No. It's just one ice core in Antarctica. Does it go up to the present time? No. Then when does it end? Hmmm.... look at where the CO2 is when the graph ends at 0. The CO2 finishes at about 275 ppm. How long ago was that?
You're having a hard time with the graph aren't you? Current temperatures are colder than all three of the previous interglacial periods in the graph.
So what?
You do know that the last time temperatures were that high, sea level was 5 to 7 meters higher than today right? You do know that human civilization didn't exist?
I don't understand why deniers keep harping on the whole 'it has been warmer in the past' line, as if the whole theory of AGW depends on the Earth being warmer than it has ever been.
If your line of thinking is that this climate is 'natural' simply because it has happened before, then why don't you go back 6 billion years when the Earth wasn't even a planet? That's 'natural' too... but I'm pretty sure there's a good reason why people aren't begging world leaders to obliterate every living thing on the Earth with nuclear weapons.
The point is that it's bad for a lot of things that CURRENTLY live on the Earth, not that it hasn't happened before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
As far as mass extinctions, you're going to have to prove that current warming trends will cause mass extinction because nothing in earth's history backs up that claim. Asteroids, volcanic eruptions, extensive ice growth... Those are real. 380 ppm of CO2 is nothing geologically speaking. That's considered a scare tactic and is a fallacy used to try and win an argument.
So the CO2 level being higher than it has been for millions of years isn't significant?
Well, these people don't seem to think so:
The new report also says the Midwest could experience more heat deaths, costlier electricity, and a decline in overall workforce productivity. It suggests, for instance, that by the end of the century, temperatures in Missouri could be a lot like they are in Arizona right now — with between 46 and 115 days above 95 degrees per year.
Similarly, it says Chicago could become a lot like today’s Texas, having even more days per year above 95 degrees than the Lone Star State currently does.
So you mean to tell me that in 85 years Chicago will have more heat than Texas currently does? Get real
Maybe someone should show these idiots that we've been trending FEWER 90+ days over the last couple of decades, not more. Actually the decade with the most 90s+ was in the "safe co2" era of the 1930's
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.
