The global warming / climate change we're seeing in the last 100 or so years is MUCH different from anything measured in the glacial & sea sediment records covering the last 700,000 years. CO2 is rising 100x faster, and temps 10x faster.
"How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?" https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php "As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming."
How is today's CO2 increase different? https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide "The annual rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 60 years is about 100 times faster than previous natural increases, such as those that occurred at the end of the last ice age 11,000-17,000 years ago."
Fact is, anthropogenic global warming is accepted by a YUGE segment of the scientific community. Would you accept the consensus opinion of the American Physical Society AND the American Chemical Society? How about the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and at least 15 other national organizations of publishing scientists? See https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
We have 700,000 years of climate data, covering about 7 ice ages. The climate data comes from bubbles in glacial ice, and is corroborated by data from sea floor sediments. https://icecores.org/about-ice-cores CO2 & methane & temp data The most salient thing about the 800,000 years of climate data is the rate of change during those previous 7 ice ages compared to the current rate of change this century.
@ImperialAerosolKidFromEP That .7C figure refers to "the past century alone," and the key point is that it's roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming. See [b]https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php[/b] for more context.
@ElwoodBlues right, that 1.1C figure is since the Industrial Revolution, which is 3x the past century. That means in 1/3 the time we've managed to contribute 63% of the increase
In 850AD, the Vikings came to America, colonized both Iceland and Greenland, but in the 1300s, the Chinese stopped burning coal out of environmental concerns, causing global temperature to drop. As a result, the cold rough North Sea became unnavigable by the Viking longships.
@IronHamster Poland? Stalin would have been happy if Poland held out, which is why the USSR only invaded after the Polish resistance was categorically broken. At that point the idea was that it's better fight Hitler in Poland than have him on the Ukrainian border. Of course, he still fucked that up anyhow.
You have a truly cartoonish understanding of history. That entire period was Soviets preparing for their war with Nazis. All of Stalin's pre-war moves were motivated by it.
@CopperCicada Basically, sometime in the 70s Newsweek ran a pop-sci article about some fairly speculative stuff, and these knuckleheads have been throwing tendies about it ever since.
The whole AGW/climate change thing has been debunked by real science. The popular science that everyone thinks they are expert in believes that mankind is killing the planet. The only thing Popular science and real science have in common is the word science.
@Strictmichael75 You are a special kind of gullible aren't you. Elon noted that while it is easy to fool someone it is nearly impossible to convince them that they have been fooled. AGW is a scam and you fell for it.
The earth has a natural hot and cold cycle. We should be on a cold cycle now but since the industrial revolution we have put more and more CO2 into the atmosphere causing this warming trend. I probably will not be around for the worst of it if things continue as they are but I feel lots of people will be affected all over the world
I think we're thinking this all wrong, the air is so clean now farmers are having to add sulfur to crop ground because there's not enough in the atmosphere to get it in rain. Seems we're way cleaner than people realize. Someone may be pulling our leg.
@Baremine I know many believe that, as you do. I don't; especially your second suggestion about "controlling the masses".
Though yes, some aspects of our lives will be affected in ways we might not like. You and I will probably be fine but it would be our children's or grand-children's generations that will really see those differences; and some of those differences are going to be inevitable whatever actions we take or avoid..
The problem is that the issue has become far too party-politicised, more so in some countries than others, when consensus is vital.
I like how you accidentally just admitted that you believe humans are capable of causing catastrophic shifts in the Earth's climate while attempting to argue the opposite.
@IronHamster I would prefer not to resort to using Google because it might give me a definition that is different than what you're using. I mean, you've already proven to us all that you use a completely different version of the English language.
@BlueMetalChick It's not my fault you see power seekers, users, and abusers as good guys. When you need counseling for your bad life decisions, let me know.
@IronHamster [quote]It's not my fault you see power seekers, users, and abusers as good guys.[/quote] You're trying to change the subject again. We're having a conversation about the veracity of clean industry. Don't go full non sequitur on me and start saying weird random shit like I see power seekers as good guys.
[quote]When you need counseling for your bad life decisions, let me know.[/quote] And that's game set match. When you run away from the argument, and you just start insulting me personally, that's an automatic L.
But I'll humor you. What "bad life decisions" have I made that I "need counseling" for? Because I'd say my life decisions have been pretty damn good considering I was born into poverty and famine, but I'm now living in a developed nation working a moderately high paying job that I love and living in relative comfort.
One has to consider the differences in 1) total number of people; 2) level of technology; 3) number of businesses, industries, etc.,
in any of the areas creating problems, whether it is as simple as amount of garbage generated, amount of stuff emitted into the air or water or onto the land which shouldn't be, etc.
If there were one small family in North America, Nature could deal with its garbage, emissions, etc., at even our current level of technology.
That simply isn't the case.
People tend to be bad at understanding how billions of people, each doing a little, can really HELP _or_ HURT the planet. The 1970s PSAs to "give a hoot, don't pollute" helped to make enough people enough mindful of this that you don't see as much random garbage in parks, etc.
Easy to reverse if people just stop caring or don't take stewardship of the glorious Creation we are blessed to be set in seriously.
Well, there was only one. Thousands of years later, they defroster her and, today, she is known as Greta the Fretter - or, Lord Hobgoblin Greta the Anointed One.
