Climate change is turning Antarctica green, say researchers

a reply to: Krazysh0t

ARe you insane? How does a green antartica show anything regarding man's impact on climate. It's not clear evidence of anything other than there being more moss than 50 years ago...

Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Krazysh0t

ARe you insane? How does a green antartica show anything regarding man's impact on climate. It's not clear evidence of anything other than there being more moss than 50 years ago...

Jaden

So how else would that moss have gotten there? Antarctica is known to be frozen you know.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I promise you that humans can't effect the climate. They may be able to AFFECT it on a small scale, but they most assuredly cannot EFFECT it.

Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I promise you that humans can't effect the climate. They may be able to AFFECT it on a small scale, but they most assuredly cannot EFFECT it.

Jaden

Oh no folks! We have a grammar nazi here!

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
I know what can be done about it, and it starts at the individual level being the best stewards of our own local environments

Megacorps laugh at this btw...not to mention most people dont give a rats ass in the west (and China/India).

Tech will resolve this issue...not telling people to recycle and carpool. a problem by advancing society will be fixed by an advanced society..through advancements.
Problem is, there isn't a lot of profit potential to make a CO2 atmospheric scrubber a thing, so it will need to be a government run thing..and how do we then pay for that?
Well, it would make sense that the biggest polluters pay more than some vegan artist...so therein you got the idea of a CO2 tax. If it goes directly to advancing tech for cleanup and alt energy, then I think that is a mutually beneficial arrangement.

The system is way too complex for you to be making any kind of conclusions over.

Especially in since you are not accounting for all the variables, in fact you are only using one variable CO2.

That is not science.

Your faulty and incomplete conclusion also does not describe whether the current climate change is a net positive or negative. You have not explained how technological advances in weather reading may have impacted the comparisons between present temperatures and historical data. Your analysis does not include what methods, or probability of errors in regards to the Heat Island Effect.

Your conclusions have also failed to account for the flora response to increased co2 levels, and whether the flora intake of co2 has impacted the rate of co2 increase, or any projections on what the rates will be in the future.

You have also not accounted for solar input, or any other variables such as the ban on nuclear testing a couple decades ago. Those are just a couple in the thousands of variables you are not taking into account when producing your 'conclusive evidence'.

a reply to: SaturnFX

shouldn't there be an abundance in plant life increasing the worlds capacitity to handle c02 emissions and a thriving planet full of life?

a reply to: HeliocentricFantasy

Exacly! BAD science! The scientific practices in the Pleistocene were not nearly as corrupt by liberals as it is now and back then where were all the automobiles? Im sick to death of all these people with doctoral degrees saying that fossil fuels and stuff are actually creating pollution which effex the atmosphere of the planet because my gut feeling tells me there simply wrong!!!

Here's some fun facts, just a variable Mr. OP did not take into account, and decided to jump to conclusions.

The most powerful of greenhouse gases — in the atmosphere one molecule of CFC has about 20,000 times the heat trapping power on a molecule of CO2.

www.globalchange.umich.edu...

CFCs have a lifetime in the atmosphere of about 20 to 100 years, and consequently one free chlorine atom from a CFC molecule can do a lot of damage, destroying ozone molecules for a long time. Although emissions of CFCs around the developed world have largely ceased due to international control agreements, the damage to the stratospheric ozone layer will continue well into the 21st century.

www.theozonehole.com...

"It takes a long time for the CFCs to get up into the stratosphere in the first place, so it's going to take a long time for them to come back out,"

science.nasa.gov...

Take some more time when attempting to convert 'doubters', get the appropriate analysis by factoring in all the variables in order to put forward a more accurate conclusion.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I promise you that humans can't effect the climate. They may be able to AFFECT it on a small scale, but they most assuredly cannot EFFECT it.

Jaden

Oh no folks! We have a grammar nazi here!

Quite important for a 'scientist' to get the words right.

originally posted by: Caver78

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: eXia7

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: eXia7
You know there have been numerous articles lately debunking global warming/climate change theories right? Or do you just choose to ignore it?

Post them

earthobservatory.nasa.gov... - Earth Cooling

www.nasa.gov... - Record Antarctic Sea Ice

weather.com... - Lowest Hurricane Forecast

weather.com... - Lowest tornadoes on record.


a simple google search would've given you this information.


cuz, science

You are posting from Nasa.. pfft.. They are anti-science. Only people that agree that Antarctica is going to be a luminous green forest in a couple of years are REAL scientists.

Since I haven't read what you have can you please link some of these "real scientists"? Not being snarky, I'm actually interested!

Lol, perhaps I should have used /sarcasm in my post.

Is there any way this could be a good thing, would more plantation help remove the CO2

I hope as a parent that we as humans begin to understand any impact we have on our splendid home planet

originally posted by: UpIsNowDown
Is there any way this could be a good thing, would more plantation help remove the CO2

I hope as a parent that we as humans begin to understand any impact we have on our splendid home planet

In terms of CO2, what we are talking about is a warming trend of a couple degrees. This average increase actually promotes more life on Earth, some areas would have a beneficial impact, other areas not so much. Overall it will be good, the optimal level for life would probably be about 10-15 degrees above current average.

The question, regarding co2 is whether to prevent the uptick of a couple degrees over decades if not a hundred plus years, or to simply adapt to the change and move on with our lives.

In terms of fuel usage, we have naturally been moving to cleaner fuel. For thousands of years, wood burning was the primary source of heat, and the dirtiest. We shifted to coal over a hundred years ago, then to oil which was cleaner than coal. Now the shift has been gaining traction in natural gas, which is cleaner than oil in terms of carbon output. After natural gas, and assuming technological advancement persists, our primary source of energy will be hydrogen, with 0 carbon output.

It has more to do with global population of humans, the sheer number of people, rather than the fuel we use. Cleaner energy is not viable at this point in time, and more primitive sources are not sustainable. It will come naturally, and all this concern is either misplaced and/or frivolous.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The problem with that narrative is that there is ACTUAL data that has been collected and refine over the last 100 or so years on this subject.

The problem with the narrative is the FACT the climate has been in a constant state of motion for millions of years.

In which the face of the planet has repeatedly changed.

Continual destruction and renewal. That thing 'scientists' call mother nature.

How bout the church of climate is out to git us all stop running around screaming the end is nigh eh?

It's a political issue, and has been since the 60s.

Hell green legislation exists.

That government agency called the EPA has been in charge of the environment for decades.

So I don't see how there is ANY problem at all.

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It should be noted that the current CO2 level in the atmosphere hasn't been seen on this planet since the Pliocene era some 3 million years ago, before humans existed.

So this HAS happened before. WITHOUT humans involved.

Now that humans can make $$$ of of this, it MUST be us evil humans causing it, and your $$$ can fix it.

That has been my whole point since we started this series of discussion.

another important question we should look inside ourselves and ponder:


WHAT IS THE IDEAL EARTH TEMP FOR HUMANS????


I think the actual ideal temperatures is probably way warmer overall than a few more degrees on average. The average temperature of Earth appears to be warmer if Antarctica was green, Alaska's north country had a Tropical rain forest and Greenland was green, honestly. Krazy you mean well on this subject but have to realize the data simply doesn't support the past being hotter than we predict it will be in 100 years.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Looks like the new home for the ones that want to get away from all the current BS going around.....Yeah, Antartica seems fair enough and beautiful enough to start the new colony. lets get them pods ready

Giggiddy

originally posted by: FuggleHop
a reply to: HeliocentricFantasy

Exacly! BAD science! The scientific practices in the Pleistocene were not nearly as corrupt by liberals as it is now and back then where were all the automobiles? Im sick to death of all these people with doctoral degrees saying that fossil fuels and stuff are actually creating pollution which effex the atmosphere of the planet because my gut feeling tells me there simply wrong!!!

Well, fossil fuels are obviously creating pollution that does affect our environment. I just don't believe that our CO2 discharge is causing any significant global warming or change in climate.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: eXia7

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: eXia7

You keep saying I don't understand it, but I do understand it. You are trying to dismiss Man Made Climate Change unscientifically and appealing to your biases. Then you buffer that opinion with cherry picked information that you haven't fully read to see if it supports your opinion. It's the same basic # I deal with in any CC thread I author.

I dunno man... I appreciate your dedication to the cause, but I'm just not buying it. The earth has a way of balancing stuff out, I just focus on my own problems and go through life the best I can. I damn sure don't want to pay more taxes (Carbon Tax) because somebody said "well this is how it is, and you need to shut up!" I just feel in time more will come out that it was all a hoax to make Al gore rich. Al Gore is the lynch pin of global warming/climate change discussion.. you discount his shenanigans in with your research bud.

Having a problem with a solution is one thing. Using the solution as a means to discount the theory is dishonest.

As for my sources, I don't 100% believe them either lol.. I used them as a way to just prove its all just THEORY.

The term "just a theory" demonstrates a lack of understanding on the definition of what a scientific theory is.

Just a theory really means NOT FACT, and that THEORY is what we have. Please, take the time to find one claim that we have seen the models make that drove Mann and IPP to convince you. Then we might actually have a WORKING theory KraZ.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I find it ironic how you, and the rest of the AGW fans keep ignoring and dismissing the fact that the Earth has been warming since the 1600s. Over 250 years well before the height of the industrial revolution Earth has been warming up. Not to mention that you, and the rest of the AGW fans keep ignoring and dismissing the fact that Earth has been undergoing other changes which do cause "climate changes"...

BTW, glaciers in Antarctica are being melted by an increase in geothermal activity...

High Heat Measured under Antarctica Could Support Substantial Life

Nearly a kilometer below the ice scientists have found a Yellowstone-like geothermal glow that could create life-rich subglacial lakes—and lubricate Antarctic ice loss

Temperatures on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet can plummet below –50 degrees Celsius in winter. But under the ice scientists have found intense geothermal heat seeping up from Earth’s interior. The heat production that they measured is nearly four times the global average—“higher than 99 percent of all the measurements made on continents around the world,” says Andrew Fisher, a hydrogeologist at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who worked on the project. This excessive heat could melt up to 35 cubic kilometers of water off the bottom of the West Antarctic Ice sheet each year, according to results reported July 10 in Science Advances.
...

www.scientificamerican.com...