New evidence suggests that man may be heating up the earth

[Moonbeam]

This could be potentially disasterous, it seems to me:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/330/6002/356

 

[Docnasty]

lol.

 

[mcmilljb]

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/330/6002/356

Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state.

I am doing my part to keep the Earth from plunging into an icebound state.

 

[dammitgibs]

The content you requested requires a AAAS member subscription to this site or Science Pay per Article purchase. If you already have a user name and password, please sign in below.

Let me know when you link to an article that isn't on a site that requires you to pay to read.

 

[piasabird]

Global Warming is not a new subject.

Mankind is nothing compared to the Sun!

 

[Moonbeam]

Global Warming is not a new subject.

Mankind is nothing compared to the Sun!

We don't live on the sun my dear self hater. Stop running yourself down.

 

[werepossum]

Science tells us that CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas.

Science tells us that there is positive feedback forcing to increasing CO2-caused heating.

Science tells us that CO2 was much, much higher at many times in the past.

Therefore Science tells us that the world was destroyed long before mankind made his first pointy stick.

So scientifically speaking we are nothing more than amusing figments of G-d's mind and shouldn't worry at all about global warming.

 

[shira]

Science tells us that CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas.

Science tells us that there is positive feedback forcing to increasing CO2-caused heating.

Science tells us that CO2 was much, much higher at many times in the past.

Therefore Science tells us that the world was destroyed long before mankind made his first pointy stick.

So scientifically speaking we are nothing more than amusing figments of G-d's mind and shouldn't worry at all about global warming.

If your point is that - regardless of mankind's fate - the Earth, and probably many of its life forms, will survive pretty much any thermal catastrophe induced by mankind's CO2 emissions, you'll get no argument from me. But if your point is that mankind shouldn't be striving to keep the earth's environment congenial to human existence, I strongly disagree.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Science tells us that CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas.

Science tells us that there is positive feedback forcing to increasing CO2-caused heating.

Science tells us that CO2 was much, much higher at many times in the past.

Therefore Science tells us that the world was destroyed long before mankind made his first pointy stick.

So scientifically speaking we are nothing more than amusing figments of G-d's mind and shouldn't worry at all about global warming.

Actually if you could fo;;ow threw with your point here. I think this could be an interesting Thread topic. How long exactly was it that reptiles ruled the earth as we know little of all those millions of years. What must the climate been like for reptiles to rule all. So what really changed after that metor hit? How much of earths atmosphere was lost and what % of Gases were either consumed or ejected. The atmosphere of earth had to have been much heavier. Than present. We only have fossil records of those times and alot of speculation

 

[peonyu]

Earth at night.

Obviously Man has little to no Impact on the planet. Obviously. And certainly not enough impact to heat the planet up, not even by 1 degree. Surely it is all 100% due to natural patterns [and the Amazon is cutting itself down btw, Man is not responsible at all for that].

Also please conveniently forget the fact that the power for those lights come from C02 via coal and other fossil fuels. And our cars, planes and other tools also pump out pollutants.

 

[werepossum]

If your point is that - regardless of mankind's fate - the Earth, and probably many of its life forms, will survive pretty much any thermal catastrophe induced by mankind's CO2 emissions, you'll get no argument from me. But if your point is that mankind shouldn't be striving to keep the earth's environment congenial to human existence, I strongly disagree.

Actually my point was that the Earth has negative feedback to any disturbance - it's a neat design. To believe that there is positive feedback from CO2-induced heating would require believing that Earth became Venus 2: The Revenge long, long ago.

 

[shira]

Actually my point was that the Earth has negative feedback to any disturbance - it's a neat design. To believe that there is positive feedback from CO2-induced heating would require believing that Earth became Venus 2: The Revenge long, long ago.

And you "know" about this negative feedback exactly how? Let me guess: Because you've seen some scientific studies that say this. Studies by the same scientists whose results you dismiss when they tell us mankind's CO2 emissions are warming the Earth.

So, you listen to scientists when they tell you want you want to hear, but not when they tell you what you don't want to hear. Very convenient.

 

[Linflas]

And you "know" about this negative feedback exactly how? Let me guess: Because you've seen some scientific studies that say this. Studies by the same scientists whose results you dismiss when they tell us mankind's CO2 emissions are warming the Earth.

So, you listen to scientists when they tell you want you want to hear, but not when they tell you what you don't want to hear. Very convenient.

2.5 billion years of geologic history of periods of carbonate deposition/erosion not enough?

 

[werepossum]

2.5 billion years of geologic history of periods of carbonate deposition/erosion not enough?

Bingo.

 

[CycloWizard]

This paper gives predictions from a model, which are not the same as evidence. Even the "recent experiments" that are mentioned in the text are computational experiments rather than actual measurements.

 

[shira]

2.5 billion years of geologic history of periods of carbonate deposition/erosion not enough?

Who's interpreting those deposits for you? Climatologists at Climate-Change-Deniers university? And whose conclusions, based on those deposits, about contemporary climate change are you using? Let me guess: Anybody but climatologists who say there's significant MMCC.

Great system you've got going there.

 

[shira]

Bingo.

Nope. Those three X's in a row means you've struck out.