Global warming milestone about to be passed and there's no going back.

In the last 2,000 years volcanic activity has gone up 300%, is that humans fault too? the sun has been 'quiet' for some time now, affecting the earth's weather, is that humans fault too? the earth continues in its 24,000 years tilt, affecting the earth's weather, is that humans fault too?
400 parts per million, not yet half of one percent, good for plant life? yes? good for food crops? yes? Strange how glass house growers operate methane burners inside to produce even more CO2.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Thanks!

IIRC the arctic oscillation is also responsible for some of Russia's permafrost destabilizing as well. We're just now getting on board with undersea volcanic processes and the sea's currents altering that is driving the weather as well. Read this a number of yrs ago and my memory is fuzzy but, larger processes that we don't come near fully understand are driving this and it can't be pinned to higher C02 yet.

Altho this doesn't stop a segment of cheerleaders from proclaiming it's true.

As far as the upper reaches atmosphere/troposphere driving climate change we understand damn little of it so things are still theories, best guesses by predictive models based on not enough data and generally best guesses. It's still all what-if's?.

The climate was going to change regardless of human activity.
Places were going to get harder to live in and some were going to get better. It's the nature of the planet.

a reply to: pikestaff

Strange how glass house growers operate methane burners inside to produce even more CO2.

Just because Co2 is good for plant life doesn't mean it's good for the planet and climate, as i said before 80% of the forest are gone, the lungs that should take care of the natural Co2 are now strugling with natural and human made Co2 levels.

But yeah the food crops are doing great with higher Co2 levels, problem fixed, now we can look the other way.

Good.

I'm not being glib or factitious either when I say that. I sincerely hope that the milestone is passed. Not only passed, but absolutely shattered. I want to see 500 and 600 ppm carbon dioxide.

Why, one might ask me? Because we as a society have known for decades that burning fossil fuels is not good for us. Don't believe me? Suck on a tailpipe for a minute and then tell me how you feel, if conscious. We aren't pouring steam and fairy dust into the atmosphere every day, and yet we as a society have collectively buried our heads in the tar sands just for the sake of daily convenience and money.

I'm a part of it, and you're a part of it, and we're all a part of it. And a few of us putting up a token amount of solar panels on our roofs or driving and electric car isn't going to change the big picture because we have - and still - elect leaders that are not brave enough to force the change that we've needed for decades.

We've been poisoning our collective homes for over a century for the concepts of not walking as far and the national economy, and we've been doing it with painted smiles on our faces.

So I hope the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels go up. And up. And up. Because we will reap what we have sown, and we will have no one to blame but our collective and historic ignorance.

originally posted by: Caver78
a reply to: Sremmos80

It's not, LOL!!
We are putting SOME in, but more comes from natural processes and also, like mentioned, deforestation.

Deforestation is man caused though. So admitting that deforestation is effecting the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere is pretty much admitting that you believe in man made climate change.

originally posted by: pikestaff
In the last 2,000 years volcanic activity has gone up 300%, is that humans fault too?

Maybe.
Global Warming Might Spur Earthquakes and Volcanoes

One particular feature that can change the balance of forces in Earth's crust is ice, in the form of glaciers and ice sheets that cover much of the area around Earth's poles plus mountains at all latitudes. The weight of ice depresses the crust on which it sits.

As the ice melts, the crust below no longer has anything sitting on top of it, and so can rebound fairly rapidly (by geological standards). (This rebounding is actually occurring now as a result of the end of the last Ice Age: The retreat of massive ice sheets from the northern United States and Canada has allowed the crust in these areas to bounce back.)

Areas of rebounding crust could change the stresses acting on earthquake faults and volcanoes in the crust.

"In places like Iceland, for example, where you have the Eyjafjallajökull ice sheet, which wouldn't survive [global warming], and you've got lots of volcanoes under that, the unloading effect can trigger eruptions," McGuire said.

With the changing dynamics in the crust, faults could also be destabilized, which could bring a whole host of other problems.

"It's not just the volcanoes. Obviously if you load and unload active faults, then you're liable to trigger earthquakes," McGuire told LiveScience, noting that there is ample evidence for this association in past climate change events.

PS: Get your facts straight. The rise in volcanic activity isn't 2000 years long. It's closer to 10 years long.

a reply to: cuckooold

The last time the Earth had this much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was more than a million years ago, when modern humans hadn’t even evolved yet.

So this is not the first time it has happened ?

What was the excuse back then when man wasn't burning fossil fuels ?

Whether you are from the pro-Climate Change camp or the anti-Climate Change camp, what cannot be denied is that we are constantly reminded through the MSM that Climate Change is a problem worthy of our attention. Is it due to the fact that humans do contribute significantly to the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere through certain practices, or is there a strong push to make it seem that this is the case?

Even for those who shun the traditional forms of media such as TV, radio and newspapers, I recommend you spend at least one day switching between each and record how many times the issue of climate change is brought up. It's not always presented like "climate change is going to doom us all!" but more like "hottest day on record for this season" and "we can expect even more chaotic weather" continually flashed in front of our eyes.

Either we are constantly being warned, for good reason, that we need to modify our behaviour, or we are being mislead for nefarious reasons to believe this is the case.

Who to believe? Everyone seems to have an agenda of sorts...

originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: cuckooold

Sorry, I can't accept this theory. I propose a different theory; maybe if we didn't use and pollute the environment with radioactive materials so much, we wouldn't have so many problems.

Are you saying ocean acidification is a byproduct of nuclear decay? Does depleted uranium maybe instigate the formation of carbon dioxide? Or are you saying all of the corporate and independent monitors are reading incorrectly (whether on purpose or due to faulty equipment?)

nor do we have any for the past million years save for core samples and tree rings.

I know, right?! All we have is highly accurate scientific measurements!

C'mon folks, really?!

Yes, really.

Why not admit that science and math are real, and spend the time/energy arguing what we should our should not do about the situation, rather than pretending there isn't a real concern?

a reply to: notmyrealname

Once again I am shocked and embarrassed that your post got so many stars. Page 1 is literally a regurgitation of the science denier talking points without actually addressing the OP.

Next year the nothern hemisphere may see 410 ppm. CO2 keeps rising, we keep burning fuel that causes this, yet so many of you will but the blinders on and pretend this is not significant.

We have pretty much absolute proof that the CO2 is our fault. Many of us want to change this, those who profit from the fossil fuel industry want us to remain ignorant of the problem and go to great lengths to spread disinfo about the reality of the carbon problem.

I'm all for eventually eliminating dumping co2 into our atmosphere via our burning of fossil fuels.

But what I absolutely despise is the way "they" are flat out lying to us through exaggeration and fear to make it look like we are 100% responsible for killing the atmosphere.

It's just not true. Om a grand scale we are minute to say the least.

Why can't "they" just say that we need to all focus on clean energy instead of saying - "whoops! There's a taxable issue"
Go ahead and burn it, but here's a tax for you.

It's like "they" are thinking - these sheep are too stupid to understand the complexity of it all, let's just say Santa Claus did it.


Edit:
Nobody wants to discuss the Medieval warming period or the Maunder Minimum. During this time period, roughly 1,000 years ago, the global temperatures where higher then they've ever been in the past 100 years.
I guess they had a lot of congested traffic jams with very little regulation on the kinds of engines and emissions from all of the cars back then, in the middle ages...

Or could it be the actual cause of not only global warming but just about everything else is...
wait for it..
wait for it..

The sun and sun spots, or the presence of activity or inactivity on the sun..

But no, it;s really all about your truck.

originally posted by: EmmanuelGoldstein
But what I absolutely despise is the way "they" are flat out lying to us through exaggeration and fear to make it look like we are 100% responsible for killing the atmosphere.

Actually the only people pushing that narrative are the deniers creating strawmans. AGW supporters will all tell you that man-made climate change factors happen in addition to natural ones.

Nobody wants to discuss the Medieval warming period or the Maunder Minimum. During this time period, roughly 1,000 years ago, the global temperatures where higher then they've ever been in the past 100 years.
I guess they had a lot of congested traffic jams with very little regulation on the kinds of engines and emissions from all of the cars back then, in the middle ages...

How about the idea that the Little Ice Age that followed it is theorized to have been partially caused by human depopulation through reforestation in the Americas (in other words indirect man-made climate change)?
Research team suggests European Little Ice Age came about due to reforestation in New World

a reply to: EmmanuelGoldstein

What does the Maunder Minimum have to do with increased atmospheric carbon dioxide? The Maunder Minimum was a period of decreased solar activity. Totally unrelated.

The Mideval Warm Period (which was not as warm as today) is fairly well understood, and had completely different causes (increased solar radiation, decreased volcanic activity.) This link explains it fairly well.


There is more than one way for global warming to occur, there are more effects of higher atmospheric carbon dioxide than temperature increases alone, and your examples given are both completely and totally unrelated to the situation today.

a reply to: cuckooold

It's a lot more sad to know, the minority (middle- port class) don't have enough power to do something.

a reply to: cuckooold

I was once one of those foolish climate change deniers... but then I saw the error in my ways, and now I'm a firm believer... and I'm pissed. Because everyone screaming the loudest about the problem are the biggest contributors to the problem:

Paris climate change conference creates its own massive carbon footprint

Obama’s Earth Day Flight Emits More CO2 Than 17 Cars Would In A Year

Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth'? -- A $30,000 Utility Bill

And some even brag about it:

Obama's Carbon Admission: 'I Have the World's Largest Carbon Footprint'

And/or profit big time off the "problem" and/or their "solution":

Al Gore's Hypocrisy: The Climate Crusader Profits from Fossil Fuels

Companies Earn Big Profits From Free Carbon Credits

All the while, not just ignoring the most promising solution, but actually oppressing a promising industry and keeping it a CRIME:

9 ways industrial hemp can save the world

Hemp, and Lots of It, Could Be One Climate Solution

The Science behind Carbon Dioxide Reduction with Hemp

Golly gee, if I didn't know better -- because now I'm a true believer -- I might think it was all about crony capitalism and enriching the few at the expense of the many...

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: 5StarOracle

True, humans have cut down 80% of the worlds forest, that alone is enough evidence towards higher Co2 levels in the air, there is simply not enough forest to "clean" the air.

What is pathetically sad here is that nobody seems that interested in finding out the numbers on that. It would be the easiest band aid by far. Instead of offering subsidies for the solar farms that aren't technically where they can operate and make a profit yet, use that money to subsidies tree planting. Even the most ardent AGW denier would be happy to plant trees for $.

a reply to: Boadicea

These are some of the REAL problems we should discuss about Climate Change politics. I won't lie to that, as long as you are smart enough to keep the scientific discussion about proof and it happening separate from the silly politics that surround it, then I'm game. Sure it can look like a con if you spin it correctly, but that only plays to the fact that humans will try to profit off any situation they can. Even situations that are horrifying. Just look at Martin Shkreli.

But for every dupe trying to game the system or not take it seriously, there is another advocate that IS taking it seriously.

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: pikestaff

Strange how glass house growers operate methane burners inside to produce even more CO2.

Just because Co2 is good for plant life doesn't mean it's good for the planet and climate, as i said before 80% of the forest are gone, the lungs that should take care of the natural Co2 are now strugling with natural and human made Co2 levels.

But yeah the food crops are doing great with higher Co2 levels, problem fixed, now we can look the other way.

Russia, biggest country in the world, is 49% forest, that that is a huge area, of tree's, there are other forest's in Europe, the Americas, small woods and coppices throughout the world, plenty of tree's to soak up the CO2, stop worrying so much, your worry will not stop CO2 production from any source.

a reply to: pikestaff

It doesn't matter if Russia or any country is having huge forest, there is still 80% missing, cut down by humans in 5000 years, it is pretty obvious that the 20% left isn't enough and as the cut down is happening as we speak, those 20 % will soon be much lower.

I'm not worried for my self, i won't live to see the real damage caused from us being careless, i do have two children though, who i'm worried for.

Part of the issue is the reporting stations are generally at schools instead of the old days they were in farmers yards. Our local station went from a green lawn in the farmers yard to hanging on the outside of the public library. Where do you think it would be warmer?