No it is NOT “going to be “Waterworld” and who said it would be THAT is a straw man of gigantic proportions And IF you think it is about “money power and control” then you are NOT thinking in global terms
I have agreed on BB and Evol we all know earth is flat !!!! Lol I have seen earth fall off a cliff by plane lol
Why “don’t “we” know if it is man or the sun? “WE” as in me and the rest of the science community certainly do know these things and that is because “WE” have read the research https://www.theguardian.com/environ...2013/sep/27/global-warming-ipcc-report-humans
It is the ONLY source of heat for our atmosphere with internal heat playing a very minor role so it is the most significant factor. Earths atmosphere has almost always had higher CO2 than now. We are in a significant deficit of CO2 due to the 2.5 million year ice age we are in. Plants start to die at 150 ppm. Plants thrive at 1000 ppm and why greenhouses pump in extra CO2. If anything more CO2 and warming are beneficial to plants and animals.
Diving For Dollars Science. Gimmie a break orExplain how YOUR Wildfires were a product of Man Made Global Warming. And your dying coral reef too! Climate changes Just Like The Weather YOU O.Z.'s add all that CO2 to your atmosphere and wonder why you have wild fires. My fav transition was from the Carboniferous to the Permian. I like an oxygen saturated Planet became, Fire Ball Earth. Ah, the Carboniferous, source of Oil, Coal and so much fossil fuels. All that CO2 waiting to be FREE. Moi What Aboot dumping all that fresh water attempting to shut down the oceanic thermal conveyor currents. eh
First of all, the reason you know this is that climatologists figured this out. But, now you seem to think that climatologists aren't considering their findings!! In fact, you are sugesting that ALL climatologists from around the entire world are in lock step, ignoring their findings. I do not accept that there can be such a perfectly implemented conspiracy of that size with no evidence of it. Beyond that, let's remember that the earliest members of Homo came 2.8 million years ago. In fact, Earth's human population BC, a mere 2020 years ago, was negligable. If it got too hot or cold or seas rose, or whatever, affected humans could move - or they could die and we wouldn't care.. When humans were primarily hunter/gatherers they didn't have to depend on crops that might fail. We don't have those options today.
A logical fallacy and an assumption that ALL climatologists are in lock step. When it gets hot or cold now we have technology to take care of that. Oceans have been higher and lower in the past so how do you propose to stop Mother Nature?
'Cold' is a relative term. The average white dwarf star has a surface temperature around the 100,000K mark.
This is a false equivalency I've seen quoted by 'deniers' on a couple of occasions. What is overlooked is how a green house operates. The owner of the green house plants a crop e.g. tomato, grapes etc, provides light and water and pumps in CO2. All good so far.That crop then grows i.e. it converts the CO2 in the air into carbon stored as plant mass. Again no problem. What you have overlooked is the next step. Come harvest time the owner of the green house physically removes almost ALL that stored carbon from the green house, takes it outside to be processed and then plants a new crop to continue the cycle. So the question is what happens if that grower was to seal off the green house and not remove any plant material while still pumping in CO2. Answer? The crops grow and fruit absorbing CO2. They then go to seed, die off and rot - in the process releasing all that stored CO2 again. Some small amount will get locked in the soil but the majority is released back into the air of the green house. The result is that an equilibrium point is soon reached with the amount of CO2 going 'in' as plant mass comes 'out' again as a decay product. At that point pumping in more CO2 is pointless - all you will do is kill the plants. And you can't beat this cycle. The Earth manages by 'locking' surplus carbon geologically in its crust.- where it says pending release via natural forces such as volcanic eruptions etc or is otherwise released by Man made means. And if you don't believe this explanation look it up or ask someone who runs a gardening center or green house.
Also we are not in an 'Ice Age'. To be correct we are currently in an Inter-Glacial Period. Starting about 500,000 years or so ago there have been 6 of them, the latest starting about 12000 years ago. If the Earth was experiencing an 'Ice Age' there would permanent glaciers and snow fields down into the Northern United States and in Europe down to Southern England, which would be connected to the continent by a land bridge. Moscow and everything north of it would be under ice.
From the second paragraph of the article: "If the sun's energy is decreasing while the Earth is warming, then the sun can't be the main control of the temperature." Er, what?
The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more heat is trapped in the atmosphere, raising sea temperatures, reducing the amount of plant life in the oceans. Plant life in the oceans is much greater than that on land. Animal and plant life is relatively dead in warm waters compared to cold waters. More CO2 and warming is not beneficial to plants and animals.
The problems come from the change, not from some idea of how much CO2 we're supposed to have or once had. Looking back to ancient times is good from the point of view of understanding climatology, but it doesn't provide an argument for allowing human activity to speed up warming today. The overalll impact of warming has serious consequences that are not mitigated by providing more CO2 to plants. Extra CO2 is not benefitting plant life in Australia, for example. Also, it's not benefitting food production in Bangladesh, where people are trying to cross India's wall against them. Also, it didn't help agriculture in Syria's years long drought that forced people to leave farms to try to find food in the cities - one of the factors in the wars there. Giving more CO2 to plants that are limited by absence of some other requirement just doesn't help.
Please cite evidence of the conspiracy that would be required to promote a world wide hoax backed by scientists in the numerous fields the combine to form climatology. Seriously. If you are going to claim this, I want evidence of this conspiracy.
Do you want me to type it slower? Imagine you are in a closed room with the heater on and you turn the heater down but the room still gets hotter................
Imagine that you're on a planet, of which its only source of heat is a nearby star. Then imagine reading, in a supposedly authoritative article, that that nearby star doesn't play the main role in the temperature of that planet.
