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

a reply to: Phage

Give me a little time to digest this; I am not running however need to spend more time than I can dedicate at this time. Thanks for providing an answer rather than just poking.

"I'll be back."

a reply to: Mianeye

Yep, and I was agreeing that it was quite a good idea; you didn't seem to think so as I recall.....

It always frustrates me to read replies on these climate change topics. Some people are in so much denial, and their reasoning for the denial is so jaded and delusional, how do you even reply to them? They have talked themselves into a place of delusion, you'd have to use delusions just to get them out.

Its so sad to see machines constantly pumping massive amounts of CO2 in the air at just about every inch of our planet, and people still don't understand the problem...

...double post

Good! I wonder how long till 500ppm.

Life needs warmth. Not a lot of growth in cold places

Also, if trees were SOOOOO damn important to the ozone cutting down 80% would have a bigger effect. How has the ppm changed relatively so little after cutting down 80%?

a reply to: Tempter

Also, if trees were SOOOOO damn important to the ozone cutting down 80% would have a bigger effect. How has the ppm changed relatively so little after cutting down 80%?

Trees don't have much to do with ozone.

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. Somehow all of our corporately paid for scientist 'geniuses' lay claim that humans account for the global changes since the industrial age or that 'we haven't been in a scenario like this since 1 million years ago...' and everyone accepts this unanimously. We do not have records for most of the industrialized society that are accurate nor do we have any for the past million years save for core samples and tree rings. C'mon folks, really?!

So we be Baaaaaad Humans and we burn stuff (sorta like what happens in nature) but we are responsible for global calamity in the short timeframe of 100+- years against a 4.5 billion year old planet....

Pfffft.

The biggest problem with this argument is laid out in the premise. 1 million years ago, this happened naturally. If it happened naturally then, why are we blaming humans now?

Doesn't make sense.

a reply to: SRPrime
It does make sense.
1 million years ago people were not digging up coal and pumping oil out of the ground and burning it. By the billions of tons.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SRPrime
It does make sense.
1 million years ago people were not digging up coal and pumping oil out of the ground and burning it. By the billions of tons.

what does not make sense is you availability to stay online all the time withe many different conversations; different topics; different scientific premises....

Holy shaaaite!! are you the Christ or just damn good a Google search and debating topics that you desire to dominate....

Time to regenerate and become ...Dr. Who....

...or not.... Maybe you know about everything and just resemble entities that look like founding fathers of ATS....

Stremor is watching .... and potentially compromised .... "All your base are belong to us"

a reply to: notmyrealname
Maybe you should start a thread about me. Because I'm not the topic of this one, am I?

a reply to: notmyrealname

Yep, and I was agreeing that it was quite a good idea; you didn't seem to think so as I recall.....

It's a silly idea.

As i said, there isn't any space to grow hemp for it to make a difference on Co2 in the air, and as the hemp is harvested or die it release the trapped Co2 back in to nature, hemp is seasonal, trees are long term.

Tempter:

Good! I wonder how long till 500 ppm. Life needs warmth. Not a lot of growth in cold places. Also, if trees were SO damn important to the ozone cutting down 80% would have a bigger effect. How has the ppm changed relatively so little after cutting down 80%?

Good? I for one cannot fathom why you have a mindset such as this? As already stated by Phage, trees do not process ozone, they process CO2 and give off oxygen. As trees grow, they take in CO2, store it as fibre, and converts the carbon dioxide into water and oxygen, and release that oxygen back into the air. Its a natural process all air-breathing life forms depend on. The less trees there are, the less CO2 is being removed from the air.

The most appropriate event that shows us (on a vastly greater scale than today) what we can expect over the coming 100 years or so, is the Permian extinction event, 250 million years ago. This event literally wiped out up to 95% of all marine life, and around 70% of terrestrial life from this planet over a period of 80,000 years, where the planet's life forms (including insects) underwent several extinction pulses, first on land, then the seas and oceans, and then on land again.

The Permian era came to an end with the Siberian Traps bursting into massive lava flows (2 million square kilometres) that kept on erupting for a million years or so. This put dust and other toxins and CO2 into the atmosphere all around the planet which firstly cooled the earth, due to the high dust concentrations blocking out solar radiation, and destroyed much of the flora and fauna and trees, and caused global disruption in the earth's ecosystems that collapsed leading to the massive loss and extinction of the planet's life forms.

Once the dust resettled back down onto the seas and oceans and land, CO2 remained in the atmosphere which allowed solar radiation through to the planet's surface, but prohibited reflection of that radiation back out into space, and thus the world began to warm. This in turn allowed the release of methane into the atmosphere, and allowed for greater warming of the planet. It is thought that the planet increased its temperature by up to 8 or 10 degrees, but eventually settled down for the reduced and remaining life forms to diversify and bring about the dinosaur era, Triassic/Jurassic.

Our particular interest is the cooling and warming mechanisms introduced to the moderately stable ecosystems of the planet during the Permian, which we are now experiencing on a much smaller scale, but accelerated time frame. Dust in the atmosphere causes cooling (by blocking out solar radiation), CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming (by trapping solar radiation), and if methane is released during the warming, this compounds and increases the warming with continual take up of knock on effects detrimental to life forms, causing possible extinction pulses.

Our immediate concern is towards disruption in our weather systems and rising sea and ocean levels due to warming, which rising CO2 levels bring about. First it makes it uncomfortable, then it makes it destructive to life forms. A warming increase of 5 degrees really will be massively catastrophic to us. We rely heavily and are dependent on stable ecosystems in order to produce food, global warming severely disrupts that through the introduction of reactive and runaway feedback mechanisms whose intensities are displayed in disrupted weather systems. Remember, first it gets uncomfortable, and then it gets destructive.

Four hundred parts per million is an indicator. It is the line whereby we lose any ability to do anything to stop global warming, all we can do now, and it has been known for a while, is to try in some way to lessen the impact. Nevertheless, no matter what we do, our populations will end up being culled and reduced, but we won't become extinct. Short term effects will be bad enough, but in long term, that is where the real damage is done.

For those who think human kind is totally responsible for climate change...
ask yourself...are you a creationist or evolutionist?
If you are either one then congrats, you have the potential to become an extremist and terrorist.

a reply to: everyonedies

lol that's funny.
So what if your neither one, what will i become when i retire?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SRPrime
It does make sense.
1 million years ago people were not digging up coal and pumping oil out of the ground and burning it. By the billions of tons.

Billions may sound like a lot but when you translate that to percentage it's not more than 5% of the total co2 in the atmosphere.
So the human carbon footprint is 5% of 0.03%
Suddenly it get pretty small.
But who knows maybe the earth is also affected by a placebo effect.

intergalactic fire:

Billions may sound like a lot but when you translate that to percentage it's not more than 5% of the total co2 in the atmosphere.

That 5% (if it is 5%) is what tips the natural fine-tuning of the planet's self-regulating systems into disruption.

So the human carbon footprint is 5% of 0.03%

It's a footprint that the planet can do without. What other mammal on the planet creates a carbon footprint like that?

a reply to: intergalactic fire

We have observed a 40%+ rise in CO2-levels....that 40% is because of human activity.

But go ahead and try to down play the raw numbers....

a reply to: elysiumfire

fine-tuning, what fine tuning? You really believe what you just said? The next thing you are going to tell me is that we are the only living species in the entire universe.

a reply to: jrod

raw numbers, i'm giving you the raw numbers. 0.0015% change will take the planet into a doom scenario. Tell that to the previous species who lived through the ice age.
More and more proof is coming about that co2 has little to no impact on global warming.
www.tech-know-group.com...

a reply to: intergalactic fire

Quit posting BS!

It is like you are intentionally trying to flood this thread with bogus information and then do all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify the bovine feces you write.

The widely accepted starting point for CO2 levels is 280ppm, now we are observing CO2 levels that exceed 400ppm.

Do I really need to show the basic math of how we get the 40%+ figure?

This is real, we are observing the CO2 levels spike as a direct result of human activity, yet people like your self will argue against the raw numbers until your fingers bleed from mashing keys.

I don't know if you are getting paid to spread the BS, or just a useful idiot who falls for the BS that big oil, Roy Spencer, The Heartland Institute, and friends are trying to spread.

As a long term member of ATS, I cannot tolerate someone like you spreading disinformation.

Jarrod