Chachie Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090127/ts_alt_afp/uswarmingenvironmentclimate_20090127132619 Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1000 years: study 2 hrs 1 min ago WASHINGTON (AFP) – Climate change is "largely irreversible" for the next 1,000 years even if carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions could be abruptly halted, according to a new study led by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The study's authors said there was "no going back" after the report showed that changes in surface temperature, rainfall and sea level are "largely irreversible for more than 1,000 years after CO2 emissions are completely stopped." NOAA senior scientist Susan Solomon said the study, published in this week's Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal, showed that current human choices on carbon dioxide emissions are set to "irreversibly change the planet." Researchers examined the consequences of CO2 building up beyond present-day concentrations of 385 parts per million, and then completely stopping emissions after the peak. Before the industrial age CO2 in Earth's atmosphere amounted to only 280 parts per million. The study found that CO2 levels are irreversibly impacting climate change, which will contribute to global sea level rise and rainfall changes in certain regions. The authors emphasized that increases in CO2 that occur from 2000 to 2100 are set to "lock in" a sea level rise over the next 1,000 years. Rising sea levels would cause "irreversible commitments to future changes in the geography of the Earth, since many coastal and island features would ultimately become submerged," the study said. Decreases in rainfall that last for centuries can be expected to have a range of impacts, said the authors. Regional impacts include -- but are not limited to -- decreased human water supplies, increased fire frequency, ecosystem change and expanded deserts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 I imagine that solving some of our energy problems will allow us not to just stop CO2 emissions but also to deploy some energy to capture CO2 from the atmosphere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 To be pre-emptive, if you are in the 'It isn't real, it can't be proven, and it is liberal conspiracy to socialize the world.' see this post (I guess being real isn't mutually exclusive to being a liberal method to socialize the world): http://www.extremeskins.com/showpost.php?p=6064282&postcount=23 (the above link has been edited to include "global cooling" from the 70's (so if that's your thing start there.)) If you are of the 'We don't make much CO2 and CO2 used to be higher, but all the Earth's water didn't evaporate away.' group see this thread see this thread: http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?p=6063454#post6063454 If you are of the 'It is all about the Milankovitch cycles.' group see this thread: http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?p=6042356#post6042356 (I'll add a paper here where I'm dubious of the methodolgy because I think they put to much emphasis on Milankovitch cycles because of the reasons outlined in the above thread, but I think is still pretty interesting) http://www.esmg.mcgill.ca/MYSAKAO.pdf With current CO2 levels, they are saying there will not be another ice age. If in the next couple of 100's of years if CO2 goes back down to pre-industrial levels, in 50,000 years there will be (current models can show cooling long term even given the existing conditions artmonkHOF). The 'It is the sun dummy.' group can look at this post: http://www.extremeskins.com/showpost.php?p=5991208&postcount=31 If somebody has a new point or a question, PM me or bump the appropriate thread. Otherwise, I'm done in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Mac Patty Wack Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 To be pre-emptive, if you are in the 'It isn't real, it can't be proven, and it is liberal conspiracy to socialize the world.' see this post (I guess being real isn't mutually exclusive to being a liberal method to socialize the world):http://www.extremeskins.com/showpost.php?p=6064282&postcount=23 (the above link has been edited to include "global cooling" from the 70's (so if that's your thing start there.)) If you are of the 'We don't make much CO2 and CO2 used to be higher, but all the Earth's water didn't evaporate away.' group see this thread see this thread: http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?p=6063454#post6063454 If you are of the 'It is all about the Milankovitch cycles.' group see this thread: http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?p=6042356#post6042356 (I'll add a paper here where I'm dubious of the methodolgy because I think they put to much emphasis on Milankovitch cycles because of the reasons outlined in the above thread, but I think is still pretty interesting) http://www.esmg.mcgill.ca/MYSAKAO.pdf With current CO2 levels, they are saying there will not be another ice age. If in the next couple of 100's of years if CO2 goes back down to pre-industrial levels, in 50,000 years there will be (current models can show cooling long even given the existing conditions artmonkHOF). The 'It is the sun dummy.' group can look at this post: http://www.extremeskins.com/showpost.php?p=5991208&postcount=31 If somebody has a new point or a question, PM me or bump the appropriate thread. Otherwise, I'm done in this thread. Most of your examples disprove global warming. Anyway, why would I trust a blog site for the Washington Redskins about evidence of global warming? I doubt anyone here really knows what they're talking about. Also, why are there now more polar bears than there were in the 1970's and, as you scientists claim, why was there tropical vegetation on Antarctica thousands of years ago but now it's too COLD to support that life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Most of your examples disprove global warming. Anyway, why would I trust a blog site for the Washington Redskins about evidence of global warming? I doubt anyone here really knows what they're talking about. Also, why are there now more polar bears than there were in the 1970's and, as you scientists claim, why was there tropical vegetation on Antarctica thousands of years ago but now it's too COLD to support that life? Good point. Indeed you look into getting your education elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brave Little Toaster Oven Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Also, why are there now more polar bears than there were in the 1970's and, as you scientists claim, why was there tropical vegetation on Antarctica thousands of years ago but now it's too COLD to support that life? BUT, BUT, BUT Al Gore said that tons of polar bears died because the ice was melting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted January 27, 2009 Author Share Posted January 27, 2009 why was there tropical vegetation on Antarctica thousands of years ago but now it's too COLD to support that life? Perhaps Antarctica was not in the same location... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Crustal_Displacement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Most of your examples disprove global warming. Anyway, why would I trust a blog site for the Washington Redskins about evidence of global warming? I doubt anyone here really knows what they're talking about. Also, why are there now more polar bears than there were in the 1970's and, as you scientists claim, why was there tropical vegetation on Antarctica thousands of years ago but now it's too COLD to support that life? Maybe because Polar Bears aren't being hunted and killed like they were in the 1950's and prior? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Most of your examples disprove global warming. Anyway, why would I trust a blog site for the Washington Redskins about evidence of global warming? I doubt anyone here really knows what they're talking about. Also, why are there now more polar bears than there were in the 1970's and, as you scientists claim, why was there tropical vegetation on Antarctica thousands of years ago but now it's too COLD to support that life? 1. Read them. 2. Then why bother to respond or even read the thread. 3. I don't know, but it isn't really relevant (but if I had to guess, I'd say hunting in the face of a growing human population/spreading habitat/modern technology.). 4. Because there was a period of time when CO2 concentrations were at about 500 ppm. Today we are at about 385 ppm. Pre-industrial levels were somewhere in the upper 200's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 my favorite of course: If you are of the 'It is all about the Milankovitch cycles.' group see this thread: see signature. I like that the ICE thickness over 800,000 years matches up the same. (duh). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 1000 years...interesting, considering that the current fear perspective is driven on a mere 200 years of data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 1000 years...interesting, considering that the current fear perspective is driven on a mere 200 years of data. Thankfully science not only allows us to predict the future, but also the past. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2005-11-24-bubbles_x.htm By analyzing tiny air bubbles preserved in Antarctic ice for millennia, a team of European researchers highlights how people are dramatically influencing the buildup of these gases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 :bsflag: more of the same propaganda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IONTOP Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 HAH!!! I bet Obama feels stupid now for signing that bill that forces auto companies to have lower emissions... Good job Mr. President, you've signed your first completely useless bill! Just jokes, just jokes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Most of your examples disprove global warming. Anyway, why would I trust a blog site for the Washington Redskins about evidence of global warming? I doubt anyone here really knows what they're talking about. Also, why are there now more polar bears than there were in the 1970's and, as you scientists claim, why was there tropical vegetation on Antarctica thousands of years ago but now it's too COLD to support that life? Heck Greenland was actually Green back in the day and digging into the ice proves that with the vegetation samples recovered recently. The best way to reduce CO2 levels immediately is to tell the liberals pushing the Global Warming Hoax to shut up, though with liberals exhaling just as much as those with a clue it won't change much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 BUT, BUT, BUT Al Gore said that tons of polar bears died because the ice was melting AlGore must be in DC today talking environment, causing the GORE EFFECT since the snow is steadily falling here today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Hes totally cereal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 With the exception of Peter, who as close as I can figure is a conservative, it's very interesting how evenly split the opinions are right along political lines. Potential threat to our existence? Well by all means, let's just argue over it for political purposes rather than actually looking for answers. Nowhere else in the world is the skepticism towards this as big as it is here in America, and almost exclusively from one party's followers, which by no small coincidence is also the party that wants to loosen restrictions on pollutants to maximize profits. It's pretty much a consensus within the global scientific community that this is happening,, with the exception of the scientists who are Republican patsies. Listening to one point of view,, history shows us how that usually works out, eh? ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcoles11 Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Heck Greenland was actually Green back in the day and digging into the ice proves that with the vegetation samples recovered recently.The best way to reduce CO2 levels immediately is to tell the liberals pushing the Global Warming Hoax to shut up, though with liberals exhaling just as much as those with a clue it won't change much. So you think there are no adverse effects of pollution? The earth's environment is completely immune to whatever we can throw at it? It is always amazing to me how people that claim to be so religious care so little about all that their lord created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Anyway, why would I trust a blog site for the Washington Redskins about evidence of global warming? You shouldn't. Perhaps, instead, you should follow the links PeterMP provided, and read what qualified experts in the appropriate fields have to say about the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky21 Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 It's hard to believe that people still think global warming is a hoax or a political shuttle****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarrellsMyHero28 Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Its raining here in Blacksburg. It should be snowing. Thus, global warming is real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Guess I better plan that trip to Hawaii fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bliz Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Perhaps Antarctica was not in the same location... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Crustal_Displacement Doesn't this belong in the Lost thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Guess I better plan that trip to Hawaii fast. Show some creativity. Book a place that's not tropical now, while it's still cheap. Book the next Hawaii. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.