NOAA: Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1000 years, reducing CO2 emissions won't help

[NickD 203]

Does that mean we are all going to be dead in a thousand years?

The government is behind this so they won't have to make SS payments.

What about those bunch of scientists that are predicting another ice age.

Even with Bush, we did get another eight years to live, earth was suppose to end in 2000, it can only end in an integer of millenniums. Hey, now the earth is going to end in the year 3000!

If there is a God, does God have a say in this?

Since when is carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas?

[dalegg 143]

This is a freebie...

Earth's climate is complex and influenced by many things, particularly changes in its orbit, volcanic eruptions, and changes in the energy emitted from the Sun. It is well known that the world has experienced warm or cold periods in the past without any interference from humans. The ice ages are good examples of global changes to the climate, and warm periods have seen grapes grown across much of Britain.

Over the several hundred thousand years covered by the ice core record, the temperature changes were primarily driven by changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun. Over this period, changes in temperature did drive changes in carbon dioxide (CO2). Since the Industrial Revolution (over the last 100 years), CO2 concentrations have increased by 30% due because to human-induced emissions from fossil fuels.

The bottom line is that temperature and CO2 concentrations are linked. In recent ice ages, natural changes in the climate, such as those due to orbit changes, led to cooling of the climate system. This caused a fall in CO2 concentrations which weakened the greenhouse effect and amplified the cooling. Now the link between temperature and CO2 is working in the opposite direction. Human-induced increases in CO2 are driving the greenhouse effect and amplifying the recent warming.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pres...ce/myths/3.html

Your graph looks very similar to the population growth graph. Simple solution- get rid of the people. This makes James Lovelock's statement that 9 billion isn't bettter than 1 billion look correct.

[mawilson 2,133]

Does that mean we are all going to be dead in a thousand years?

I think we'll be dead much sooner than that, man.

[Peikko 1,575]

This is a freebie...

Earth's climate is complex and influenced by many things, particularly changes in its orbit, volcanic eruptions, and changes in the energy emitted from the Sun. It is well known that the world has experienced warm or cold periods in the past without any interference from humans. The ice ages are good examples of global changes to the climate, and warm periods have seen grapes grown across much of Britain.

Over the several hundred thousand years covered by the ice core record, the temperature changes were primarily driven by changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun. Over this period, changes in temperature did drive changes in carbon dioxide (CO2). Since the Industrial Revolution (over the last 100 years), CO2 concentrations have increased by 30% due because to human-induced emissions from fossil fuels.

The bottom line is that temperature and CO2 concentrations are linked. In recent ice ages, natural changes in the climate, such as those due to orbit changes, led to cooling of the climate system. This caused a fall in CO2 concentrations which weakened the greenhouse effect and amplified the cooling. Now the link between temperature and CO2 is working in the opposite direction. Human-induced increases in CO2 are driving the greenhouse effect and amplifying the recent warming.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pres...ce/myths/3.html

Your graph looks very similar to the population growth graph. Simple solution- get rid of the people. This makes James Lovelock's statement that 9 billion isn't bettter than 1 billion look correct.

Of course there is a correlation, more people, more consumption - duh.

Not quite sure if the world is ready for the solution though...

[Aubrey 10]

Of course there is a correlation, more people, more consumption - duh.

Not quite sure if the world is ready for the solution though...

I think the world will get it whether ready or not. Globalization might do it (spreading a current disease, like Ebola perhaps), burning down all our rainforests might (unleashing some new exotic disease), natural disasters might do it (which get worse with global warming)...

Think "Bubonic Plague" but on a world scale. Stick enough people in a tiny area, and it's bound to happen.

[dalegg 143]

Of course there is a correlation, more people, more consumption - duh.

Not quite sure if the world is ready for the solution though...

I think the world will get it whether ready or not. Globalization might do it (spreading a current disease, like Ebola perhaps), burning down all our rainforests might (unleashing some new exotic disease), natural disasters might do it (which get worse with global warming)...

Think "Bubonic Plague" but on a world scale. Stick enough people in a tiny area, and it's bound to happen.

Yup. I believe that when you have two sets of data that correlate with eachother so exacting it would be almost against the laws of nature and mathmatics to be able to significantly reduce one without impacting the other.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

CO2 Emissions and human population are not on a 1 to 1 ratio worldwide, and I'm sure most of us living in the industrialized world know that, which returns the argument back to conservation and renewable energy solutions.

[dalegg 143]

CO2 Emissions and human population are not on a 1 to 1 ratio worldwide, and I'm sure most of us living in the industrialized world know that, which returns the argument back to conservation and renewable energy solutions.

We're doomed. Doomed I say.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

CO2 Emissions and human population are not on a 1 to 1 ratio worldwide, and I'm sure most of us living in the industrialized world know that, which returns the argument back to conservation and renewable energy solutions.

We're doomed. Doomed I say.

I'm optimistic that we can drastically reduce our C02 emission down to more manageable levels but we have to make bold steps and time is running out.

[Rocky_nBullwinkle 6]

Let's see. Once upon a time, there was the earth with a reducing atmosphere, no life, and all the oxygen was locked up as carbon dioxide. Things evolved (plants) that could use sunlight to combine water with carbon dioxide (photosynthesis), and produce complex carbohydrate structures on which they could reach more sunlight (trees). In the process, lots and lots of oxygen was produced, which oxidized dissolved metals in the oceans, clearing the waters, and eventually allowed for the evolution of animals that used the oxygen to metabolize all that plant life and other animals. Still, there was so much plant life sequestering so much carbon, that over time, it covered the earth with layer upon layer, and eons later, all those carbohydrates became locked deep in the earth, the pressure squeezing out all the oxygen (and some hydrogen), until all that was left was hydrocarbons, and graphites.

Man is just doing his job, freeing all that carbon dioxide, so the process can start over again.

--Bullwinkle

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Let's see. Once upon a time, there was the earth with a reducing atmosphere, no life, and all the oxygen was locked up as carbon dioxide. Things evolved (plants) that could use sunlight to combine water with carbon dioxide (photosynthesis), and produce complex carbohydrate structures on which they could reach more sunlight (trees). In the process, lots and lots of oxygen was produced, which oxidized dissolved metals in the oceans, clearing the waters, and eventually allowed for the evolution of animals that used the oxygen to metabolize all that plant life and other animals. Still, there was so much plant life sequestering so much carbon, that over time, it covered the earth with layer upon layer, and eons later, all those carbohydrates became locked deep in the earth, the pressure squeezing out all the oxygen (and some hydrogen), until all that was left was hydrocarbons, and graphites.

Man is just doing his job, freeing all that carbon dioxide, so the process can start over again.

--Bullwinkle

Bull,

Do you really feel competent and content with your understanding of climate science to openly refute the science with anecdotal story?

I recommend you start here:

Climate change: A guide for the perplexed

There's plenty more here. Dare yourself to be informed.

[Uncle Wally 2]

Here's a short documentary about global warming:

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Here's a short documentary about global warming:

Yes. Dare yourself to be informed!!!

[Rocky_nBullwinkle 6]

Bull,

Do you really feel competent and content with your understanding of climate science to openly refute the science with anecdotal story?

I recommend you start here:

Climate change: A guide for the perplexed

There's plenty more here. Dare yourself to be informed.

Now, where did I say refute?

The "planet" survives or doesn't survive, no matter what man does. The real question is, "Will man survive?" The core of that debate is, "What is man's role in climate change?" Small? Large? There is a secondary debate, that is, "What can man do to secure his continueing survival?" The point of the article presented by the OP is, the problem is so big, nothing man does, or doesn't do can stop it.

What if I choose not to debate? Is not also an option as well?

--Bullwinkle

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I've got this cousin from Joysey, he sez he can take care of my sister's brain tumor for fifty bucks. He sez she don't need to see one of doze two bit, good-for-nuttin neurosurgeons, who are lookin to improve their golf swing.