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.
Our study shows that relatively moderate additional anthropogenic CO2-emissions from burning oil, coal and gas are already sufficient to postpone the next ice age for another 50,000 years."
Which means that 2,825 years have been warmer than today (with less co2).
From your link....
The temperature trends during most of the post-ice-age period match those expected from natural factors such as the long-term variation in the tilt of Earth’s axis, says Marcott. But in the past century and a half, industrial emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide have increased — which helps to explain why global temperatures have risen so quickly in recent decades, he suggests.
By the end of this century, regardless of future carbon dioxide emissions, temperatures will be at their highest since the end of the most recent ice age, the researchers say.
I hate to break it to you, but we are well beyond arguing over whether its AGW or just GW. It's real. It's here and its yours and my problem! What is so hard to understand about that? As we speak the Marshall Island's are being evacuated. Why? Because they will be underwater in less than a decade. The Navy is unable to argue that people are not drowning in the lower lying areas of a U.S. Territory! They would love to be able to turn their backs on the natives and deny that their concerns are valid.
Long before the temperature rise and the resulting oceanic and atmospheric instability make human life unsupportable, the economic and political instability caused by crop failures, property damage from meteorological events and etc. will precipitate war and/or civil unrest significant enough to threaten National Security. Long before that it will threaten economic growth and the profit schemes of the 1%. You should worry when that starts becoming evident. It will be in your lifetime.
I really cannot fathom the point of a thread like this at this point in time. Really? It's not our fault so we should just continue burning fossil fuels and raising the temperature of the atmosphere further because ... it's happening anyway? Unacceptable. Completely unacceptable. That kind of naive fatalism had a place in the Middle Ages when we thought the world was flat.
Well gosh darn, please explain why there are ancient cities under the mediterranian sea. Recent spear heads discovered after Sandy reveal that the land base of Nj was way out in the ocean at one time.
Don't know if you heard or not but the US government and other countries have implemented plans in the form of regulations and taxes to reverse human caused global warming.
How is that working out?
What has been accomplished so far?
Are we on a track to be saved or are we doomed unless everyone holds hands and say they believe.
On we on track to save the planet from human caused global warming?
or does the effort have to be changed to 'global warming' sans the preface 'human caused'?
The warmers pretend that despite the government actions already taking place, if you don't 'believe' the world will be doomed.
Talk about mythology and high priests interceeding on our behalf to the gods, the warmers are deep into primitive belief systems where sacrificial offering on the altar of Gore will impact the earth's agenda. Shades of the Incas!
Meanwhile the deniers are environmentally conscious and practice behavior respectful of the environment....but because they don't believe they are the enemy and reason all living things on earth will be doomed at some date convenient to the ideologic politcal agenda being pushed by human caused global warming profiteers.
Shinto priests in Japan began record-keeping of the freeze dates of a nearby lake, in 1442, while in 1693 Finnish merchants started recording ice breakup dates on the Torne River.
Note the attempt to skew data for the dates of ice freeze on the chart below
From your link....
The temperature trends during most of the post-ice-age period match those expected from natural factors such as the long-term variation in the tilt of Earth’s axis, says Marcott. But in the past century and a half, industrial emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide have increased — which helps to explain why global temperatures have risen so quickly in recent decades, he suggests.
And? You mean there are multiple factors that warm and cool the earth? Yes I know this
Quote:
By the end of this century, regardless of future carbon dioxide emissions, temperatures will be at their highest since the end of the most recent ice age, the researchers say.
You forgot to add this part
Quote:
Climate models from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggest that by the end of this century,
Plus, warming is better than cooling (at least at my latitude).
I hate to break it to you, but we are well beyond arguing over whether its AGW or just GW. It's real. It's here and its yours and my problem! What is so hard to understand about that? As we speak the Marshall Island's are being evacuated. Why? Because they will be underwater in less than a decade. The Navy is unable to argue that people are not drowning in the lower lying areas of a U.S. Territory! They would love to be able to turn their backs on the natives and deny that their concerns are valid.
Long before the temperature rise and the resulting oceanic and atmospheric instability make human life unsupportable, the economic and political instability caused by crop failures, property damage from meteorological events and etc. will precipitate war and/or civil unrest significant enough to threaten National Security. Long before that it will threaten economic growth and the profit schemes of the 1%. You should worry when that starts becoming evident. It will be in your lifetime.
I really cannot fathom the point of a thread like this at this point in time. Really? It's not our fault so we should just continue burning fossil fuels and raising the temperature of the atmosphere further because ... it's happening anyway? Unacceptable. Completely unacceptable. That kind of naive fatalism had a place in the Middle Ages when we thought the world was flat.
Actually... No, we're not. If we're beyond that distinction then presumably the hysterical climate change crowd will now refrain from calling people who question some of the science around this "deniers", right?
From your link....
The temperature trends during most of the post-ice-age period match those expected from natural factors such as the long-term variation in the tilt of Earth’s axis, says Marcott. But in the past century and a half, industrial emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide have increased — which helps to explain why global temperatures have risen so quickly in recent decades, he suggests.
By the end of this century, regardless of future carbon dioxide emissions, temperatures will be at their highest since the end of the most recent ice age, the researchers say.
While this is fun and all, you're citing research from one side of the argument. Research from the experts who are skeptics strongly suggests that the AGW crowd are exaggerating and cherry picking stats to make global warming seem way bigger than it really is.
What I'd rather see is completely unbiased research.
I really cannot fathom the point of a thread like this at this point in time. Really? It's not our fault so we should just continue burning fossil fuels and raising the temperature of the atmosphere further because ... it's happening anyway? Unacceptable. Completely unacceptable. That kind of naive fatalism had a place in the Middle Ages when we thought the world was flat.
Climate change short term, medium term, and long term what does it look like and what does it do?
Short term, next 50 years, sea level going up 3 feet or more is on the books as likely. This amount of sea level rise means enough fresh water added to the North Atlantic to cause the northern latitudes to freeze over. So inside 50 years the start of global cooling.
Medium term, ice age.
Long term ice age.
So should we do anything to combat climate change?
While this is fun and all, you're citing research from one side of the argument. Research from the experts who are skeptics strongly suggests that the AGW crowd are exaggerating and cherry picking stats to make global warming seem way bigger than it really is.
What I'd rather see is completely unbiased research.
Unfortunately, it's been politicized. Therefore the 'science' people run around exclaiming is politicized.
To use a sports analogy, it would be like revamping errors and walks to account for batting average. Lol
As a data consultant, I love the links people use. Especially when one gets to data merhodolgy and do design. Not to mention the blantantly obvious fact that the data validity has been worth how much until maybe the last 30-40 years? Maybe even not that long.
Why do people try so hard to discredit the greenhouse effect of burning fossil fuels? It shows a peculiar pathology, a combination of ignorance and selfishness that is unique in this country whenever this subject is discussed.
Because, obviously, an army of wannabee environmental bureaucrats would have to take their plans for somebody else's tax dollars elsewhere; they might even have to get a real job at the wages their "expertise" commands which, (obviously) ain't much.
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.
have to get a real job at the wages their "expertise" commands which, (obviously) ain't much.
