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.
To me this is the strongest evidence of global warming....
Sea levels on Earth are rising several times faster than they have in the past 2,800 years and are accelerating because of man-made global warming, according to new studies.
Until the 1880s and the world's industrialization, the fastest seas rose was about three to four centimetres (1 to 1.5 inches) a century, but today the rate of rise is more than a foot per century.
That is already causing problems, which will only get worse in the future.
So get your floaties, a snorkel, and some flippers...
We're in an interglacial period and technically in an ice age which is heading towards a natural warming period. It gets pretty complex which is why I posted some links.
To me this is the strongest evidence of global warming....
Sea levels on Earth are rising several times faster than they have in the past 2,800 years and are accelerating because of man-made global warming, according to new studies.
Until the 1880s and the world's industrialization, the fastest seas rose was about three to four centimetres (1 to 1.5 inches) a century, but today the rate of rise is more than a foot per century.
That is already causing problems, which will only get worse in the future.
Isn't there an ice age that is still trying to correct itself completely?
They have been studying the cycles of weather patterns, for how long globally? Aw, but a blip in the timeline.
70's was coming of the new ice age....
NASA does not know what the earth's carbon cycle capacity is.
I think the reason they don't know the Earth's 'carbon cycle capacity' is because it's something you made up. I don't have a clue what you mean when you say that... but when you say things like this, I have to really wonder if you understand how AGW theory works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812
Where is most of the plant and animal life on planet earth? Right along the equator. A warmer planet would see an explosion of life, not a bust.
It's not as simple as warm = good and cold = bad. Plants also need healthy soil, moisture and time to adapt.
The phrase, "on the day you were born," is just analogous to the claim that man-made global warming started around last century. We spend centuries in the little ice-age, and the planet warmed out of it. It just so happened to coincide with human ingenuity and invention, and the industrial age in the late 1800s.
It's the alarmists who think we humans warmed the planet, with our activities which produced a minuscule increase in CO2.
There is literally no other explanation for the rise in temperatures BESIDES AGW. Solar conditions brought us out of the little ice age, but those solar conditions have long since changed so that we should be cooling very slightly at the moment. But we aren't.
A 0.04% increase in CO2 has raised the average annual temperature by 0.8C. And that doesn't mean everywhere is 0.8C warmer, it means some places could be 5C warmer, others 10C warmer, and others 0.1C warmer. This isn't even accounting for the lag-- temperatures will go up in the future. And since CO2 levels are supposed to hit 550 PPM by the end of the 21st century, we're looking at thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of years of a completely different climate.
And you think the earth's ability to handle CO2 reached its max, on the day you were born, and now we are going into a climate thermo runaway.
Believe me, I've read the posts from our most prominent climate alarmists, like the OP, who claim the we humans have overwhelmed the earths carbon cycle capabilities. It's horse****. Our scientists do not know what the planets carbon cycle capacity is, it's just another convenient component to their scare tactics.
The Earth can handle a LOT more CO2 than we will probably ever emit. Levels as high as 1000 PPM existed millions of years ago. Human beings have only ever experienced levels between 170 and 280 PPM for all of our 200,000 year history until the 20th century... and that includes the Ice Age when CO2 levels were very low.
The end of the Ice Age (which also led to the beginning of civilization) was brought about by natural forces... natural warming releasing trapped CO2 buried in ice that covered most of the planet until everything stabilized and CO2 release slowed to a crawl/virtually stopped.
But in the case of AGW, it's not about CO2 being very gradually released from a finite amount of ice, it's about people digging up CO2 that has been buried for millions of years and putting it into the atmosphere as quickly as they can in order to drive to work and have computers and electricity.
Here is an article from a reputable publication that talks about what we can expect from this level of CO2:
There is no 'carbon cycle capacity'... it is not difficult for NASA to measure the CO2 content of the atmosphere, and calculating the effects of that CO2 isn't difficult either... they know how much stays in the atmosphere, how much goes into the oceans, how much is absorbed into the soil or the plants or whatever.
AGW isn't about identifying some sort of 'magic moment' where runaway global warming is going to continue forever until the Earth is incapable of supporting life... most climatologists do NOT believe that it is even possible for human beings to render the Earth permanently uninhabitable... just inhospitable for thousands of years. It probably won't take thousands of years for +6C temperatures to kill off a lot of species.
Climatology is about certain levels of CO2 producing certain average global temperatures, and then other branches of science try to determine what life will be like in those conditions for various species, but I'm not sure that they are concerning themselves with +6C levels of survival... the biggest problem isn't the fact that it's getting warmer, the problem is that it's getting warmer too rapidly for living things to adapt.
If you're talking about the Earth becoming Venus-- I don't think anyone on this board is saying that. But the likely scenario of 550ppm by the end of the century and the resulting 6C rise in annual global temperatures is probably enough to guarantee the collapse of human civilization in or even before the 22nd century, barring advancements in geoengineering. We're already approaching a fifth of the way into the century and almost nothing has been done.
This of course, won't necessarily mean the extinction of the human race... just the end of civilization, along with a lot of other extinctions in the oceans and on land. So yeah, I guess everything will be fine because it's not like we have to worry about something that will happen in the 22nd century. Maybe people will be happier in the new dark ages.
let's see: a foot per century rise, and I'm about 1,250 above sea level (although we can see the Pacific from our lanai).
I'm good.
You don't get it, do you? Even a few feet of sea level rise, and suddenly hundreds of millions, if not billions of people around the world will become refugees as loss of arable land accelerates and the range of deadly disease carrying mosquitoes skyrockets. The refugee crisis from sea level rise we will see as soon as 30 years from now will make the Syrian refugee crisis look like a walk in the park.
And the sad thing is that we are probably past the point of no return. The world in 30-40 years does not have a bright future. It will literally be the end of civilization as we know it, and most people just laugh.
You don't get it, do you? Even a few feet of sea level rise, and suddenly hundreds of millions, if not billions of people around the world will become refugees as loss of arable land accelerates and the range of deadly disease carrying mosquitoes skyrockets. The refugee crisis from sea level rise we will see as soon as 30 years from now will make the Syrian refugee crisis look like a walk in the park.
And the sad thing is that we are probably past the point of no return. The world in 30-40 years does not have a bright future. It will literally be the end of civilization as we know it, and most people just laugh.
oh please, stop with the "sky is falling" routine, its gets old after the first few thousand times you use it. second what part of "interglacial period" do you not understand? we are only 12,000 years or so out of the last glacial period, and the global mean temperature is not as high as the previous interglacial period was at this point. and for the last two million years there has been a COOLING trend, each interglacial period being cooler than the last one.
and granted there are areas that will be hard hit when the sea level rises, but there are also areas that will welcome sea level rise as well. for instance the arial sea in russia could use some sea level rise, as could the dead sea in israel.
It is a naturally occurring trend, since we are coming out of the ice age, still.
The poles before the ice age had very little year around ice.
There are cities that have been submerged under the sea for 3000-8000 years.
What caused their global warming to sink them 30-100 feet underwater?
Man made global warming? Climate change?
No, it is not natural, unless you think human CO2 emissions are a natural occurrence....The ocean levels stopped rising about 2000 years ago after coming out of the last glacial period, then began rising again at the start of the industrial age....Do you really think that was just coincidence?
oh please, stop with the "sky is falling" routine, its gets old after the first few thousand times you use it. second what part of "interglacial period" do you not understand? we are only 12,000 years or so out of the last glacial period, and the global mean temperature is not as high as the previous interglacial period was at this point. and for the last two million years there has been a COOLING trend, each interglacial period being cooler than the last one.
and granted there are areas that will be hard hit when the sea level rises, but there are also areas that will welcome sea level rise as well. for instance the arial sea in russia could use some sea level rise, as could the dead sea in israel.
Good grief....The Dead and Aral seas are land locked, and are not affected by the ocean levels....By the way, during the previous interglacial period sea levels were 18 to 30 feet higher than they are today.
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.
On that note, isn't it about time to end this pointless thread?
