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.
We are running out of time. We are past the point of doing anything to reverse the depletion of the ozone layer by carbon immisions into the atmosphere - the damage has already been done.
According to this article in the Journal of Geophysical Research, increased atmospheric CO2 is actually speeding up the recovery of the ozone layer, including the hole over Antarctica.
The damage to the ozone is being repaired, and CO2 is helpful in that regard.
Anyway, data, analysis and research suggests that in just the short span of time humans have been around, there have been warmer periods than now, and faster warming over shorter periods as well.
But that's completely irrelevant. Nobody is suggesting that human beings can't survive the climate right now. The problem is that heating is happening greater and faster than ever before in human history due to causes which are accelerating over time. The record-setting global warming we are currently experiencing isn't the point; it's the prologue.
This is what I don't I get. Scientists just recently made the connection that a massive release of stored CO2 from under the ocean was a major contributor to the end of the ice age.
So if the "natural" release of CO2 into the atmosphere was enough to warm the planet enough to melt ice sheets that were miles thick, what do you think the manmade release of so much more CO2 into the atmosphere is going to do?
But that's completely irrelevant. Nobody is suggesting that human beings can't survive the climate right now. The problem is that heating is happening greater and faster than ever before in human history due to causes which are accelerating over time. The record-setting global warming we are currently experiencing isn't the point; it's the prologue.
The highlighted portion is not true. Greenland and Antarctic ice cores say that the 1st Century Warm period was warmer and the increase in temperature was more dramatic than what we have seen the last 50 years.
The entire point is that it isn't record setting. The temp where it's at, the rate at which it is increasing, none of it is unprecedented. The planet has warmed in the last century, but not unnaturally so, nor more dramatically than ice core data suggests for earlier periods. The only thing markedly different now than then is that we have accurate measuring of temperature and have to weight it against it interpolated temps from tree rings, ice cores, etc. The initial AGW hysterics were being selective towards a narrative, but more and more research is showing the past periods were indeed warmer than once thought, and there have been more periods of sharper increase and decrease than previously thought.
The more the issue is studied, the more natural and less "unprecedented" the temperature increase becomes.
Do you think we shouldn't take a jet to go on vacation?
Should we not drive our cars?
Should we not have new computers or new phones?
The only way it's supposed to be stopped is by raising taxes, and if you look at taxes and the environment, you can clearly see that as the number and amount of taxes have gone up, so have temperatures.
...and meanwhile nobody in China or India is going to put up windfarms and solar panels, they are going to keep burning things for fuel, and their economies are growing, and there are more of them than us.
So, if the point is, punishing me for driving my car (that gets 36MPG) to feel better about yourself is nice, but really isn't going to amount to jack squat when it comes to the environment. It's a feel good, "I'm an educated liberal and you're a knuckle dragging right winger" topic.
The only thing that will "save the planet" is POPULATION CONTROL, and again, fat chance anyone in India or the Middle East doing that voluntarily. Also, population control runs against the basic tenets of capitalism, that everything must grow.
This is what I don't I get. Scientists just recently made the connection that a massive release of stored CO2 from under the ocean was a major contributor to the end of the ice age.
So if the "natural" release of CO2 into the atmosphere was enough to warm the planet enough to melt ice sheets that were miles thick, what do you think the manmade release of so much more CO2 into the atmosphere is going to do?
Why didn't that release cause a non-stop warming of the planet?
We know that the oceans store CO2 (50 times more than the atmosphere). We know that as ocean water warms, it releases CO2.
So, as the ice retreated and the ocean temperatures warmed, the ocean, the ice and the land would have released more CO2 causing even more warming causing even more CO2 releasing causing more warming and on and on and on.
Why did it stop?
It stopped because it's not that simple. There are a lot of variables in play that keep an endless warming cycle from continuing.
The highlighted portion is not true. Greenland and Antarctic ice cores say that the 1st Century Warm period was warmer and the increase in temperature was more dramatic than what we have seen the last 50 years.
The entire point is that it isn't record setting. The temp where it's at, the rate at which it is increasing, none of it is unprecedented. The planet has warmed in the last century, but not unnaturally so, nor more dramatically than ice core data suggests for earlier periods. The only thing markedly different now than then is that we have accurate measuring of temperature and have to weight it against it interpolated temps from tree rings, ice cores, etc. The initial AGW hysterics were being selective towards a narrative, but more and more research is showing the past periods were indeed warmer than once thought, and there have been more periods of sharper increase and decrease than previously thought.
The more the issue is studied, the more natural and less "unprecedented" the temperature increase becomes.
You claim this, but post no sources.
This is probably because your sources are denier blogs.
Here is an article where the author of a tree ring study that 'proves' global temps were higher during the RWP refutes the lies spread by deniers:
That Scandinavia may have been slightly warmer in the 11th century than today also doesn't change the fact that the world, as a whole, is warmer now. "This data is spatially specific. You would expect to see this trend in northern Scandinavia, but not in the Alps," Wilson said. "Almost all models show that the current global warming is probably warmer overall than that warming."
I don't know where you're getting your ice core story from.
Last edited by Spatula City; 02-18-2015 at 03:36 PM..
The only thing that will "save the planet" is POPULATION CONTROL
So AGW is a problem that will work itself out.
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.
