Slashdot Mirror
Climatologists: By 2100, the Earth Will Have an Entirely Different Ocean
merbs writes: The ocean is in the midst of radical, manmade change. It can seem kind of crazy that one of the most immense properties on Earth—the ocean washes over 71 percent of the planet—could be completely transformed by a swarm of comparatively tiny, fleshy mammals. But humans are indeed remaking the ocean, in almost every conceivable way. The ocean we know today—that billions swim, fish, float, and surf in—that vast planetary body of water will be of an entirely different character by the end of the century: hotter, higher, trashier, and more acidic.
I dunno if it's the summary or the article that's trash, but wow. Terrible.
Wormwood ??
hotter, higher, trashier
Are we sure they're not making predictions about the next generation of Kardashians? They're definitely anthropogenic. Maybe we could bury them under millions of black plastic balls .
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
In 85 years we'll have flying cars, submersible habitats, colonies on the moon, we'll be terraforming Mars and flying around in spaceships.
Course, all that was supposed to have happened - well, now According to the "experts".
Even Ted Danson predicted that the Oceans would be dead in the 1990's (dead before 2000). https://answers.yahoo.com/ques...
Can the folks who predicted this latest disaster be held accountable?
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
It can seem kind of crazy that one of the most immense properties on Earth—the ocean washes over 71 percent of the planet—could be completely transformed by a swarm of comparatively tiny, fleshy mammals.
Why? The oceans have radically changed before due to the actions of microbes. It may have taken them longer but the change were even more dramatic.
There is no "normal" earth atmosphere, no "normal" earth ocean. To humans there is merely the incarnation of the atmosphere and ocean that we evolved in, that is good for us and the other creatures and plants that evolved "contemporaneously" to us.
I'd like a hotter ocean. All the better to swim in. And a higher ocean? Well, I live near it but, on higher ground. So, I'm all set. Haaaaaaa haaaaaaaa. Trashier? I doubt we'll notice. And as far as the sea life goes, it will adapt and thrive. And more acidic??? Well, that just means I won't have to buy a stupid lemon to squeeze over my tasty fish exactly 1 inch under the size limit that I took without a fishing license. So, if you'll all excuse me, I have a fuckin TON of mercury thermometers I have to throw at a whale. I'm gonna get one in his fuckin blow hole THIS time. I JUST know it!
The sun is the reason for seasons, and solar flares affect climate. But the IPCC had a vote and decided that solar cycles are not responsible so that they can collect billions in carbon taxes and exercise absolute control over every aspect of our lives.
Didn't Al Gore predict that there would be no ice in the Arctic at all by 2014 or something like that? Their models have never been right. They can't even get the weather right 2 weeks from now, so why should ANYONE believe their ridiculous models 50 - 100 years out from now?
Read the NIPCC reports for a real explanation of what the source material of the IPCC reports actually say.
i'm so tired of doom and gloom. Can't scientists ever say nice things?
Slashdot is normally science-aligned. But I am surprised at how Slashdotters suddenly seem to become something akin to flat-earthers when it comes to *scientific consensus* on climate change. I don't recall this community always being like this.
you know those nice white beaches you like to lie on? its all parrot fish poop from eating coral :o)
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
I don't believe you. In the 70's it was going to be an ice age, now it is going to be a heat wave. Is the data real or manipulated?
Face it we just do not have a friggin' clue as to what is actually going to happen as the climate swings wildly with an increased oscillation as the oceans heat up and the poles thaw out. Obviously the more energy you put into the ocean and atmosphere the more the currents will change in unpredictable ways. Like bad computer code with too many variables the possibilities are highly unpredictable.
For one it is entirely possible that increases in global temperatures causing forest fires across the boreal forest zone of the northern hemisphere will put enough particulate into the air that a mini ice age similar to a nuclear winter might happen. We cannot be certain about the outcomes of global warming. BUT we have some evidence that major events that put large amounts of particulate into the atmosphere in a short period of time can and do cause mini ice ages. One occurred in the early 18th century and it lasted about 15 years, caused wars over farm lands and minor starvation in Europe and the Russian Steps. The climate did suddenly become colder in a hurry after a number of large volcanic events, one of which occurred in the Western Canada, basically blocked the suns uv rays for over a year. So it is entirely possible that there is a natural reaction to over heating of the earths atmosphere and crust that can cause high altitude dust that puts a damper on the warming. Call it a pressure relief valve system that we just don't quite understand yet.
Either way if global warming continues the bread basket of the US is in trouble big time because of global warming. The Colorado river is about to experience incredible flooding as El Nino dumps winter monsoons on the Rockies without snow. Flooding can be as bad for the farm economy as drought and what is about to occur is landslides on a monumental scale all over the West Coast of North America.
Either way we are about to pay a terrible price for out ecological greed and stupidity. In a way the coming disasters will finally wake people up but the irony is as people wake up to what fossil fuels have done they very well might be on the verge of having to turn to them even more to save themselves from a mini ice age! The swings in climate will occur in both directions. Here is another sobering thought, the dust from automobile tires and paved road ways will be more than just a problem for aquatic life in drainage systems. I predict that tire dust and road dust in dry climate large cities will become the number one cause of respiratory illness and surpass even smoking in cities like Los Angeles as the number one cause of lung illnesses. Within a few years the smart people will wear dust masks all the time and live in filter air buildings, the poor will just continue to suffer and die in the streets as always. Our combined greed and stupidity will make the black hole of Calcutta look like paradise on earth!
This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
interesting
I'm quite disappointed in Slashdots readers.
Many of the people who read Slashdot are IT sector workers which means that many of us lead data led lives. We support, manage, process and analyse data irrespective of whether or not it paints a pretty picture.
The information contained in this article is absolutely nothing new at all, most of it has been known since the 1970's. You can not pump carbon into the atmosphere and expect there to be no consequence, much of that carbon is absorbed by the sea converting it to carbonic acid. This isn't news its olds, the difference now is that we can put a date on the likely tipping point for significant change. The data can't be argued with you might as well shout at a brick wall. Science will report on both the data and findings and what it means working with current projections. you may argue about the destination, but the projections are accurate and in-line with expectations. What I would be interested un seeing is the data that projects either a deferment or reversal of change and what the requirements would be.
Be my guest however, complain about how negative it all is while doing nothing about it. Afterall its easy to believe in the la-la fairy its alright alternative than face a reality.
I don't believe you.
Then you're an idiot.
In the 70's it was going to be an ice age,
Nope, never happened. Oooh I see you're confusing journalists in the popular press floundering around with actual science. Do you do that with computer stuff too, or do you only level your skepticism on things you truly don't understand?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
SJW n. One who posts facts.
i wonder what will happen to this city
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Who needs a climate? I have air condition. Sea levels rising? Why should I care, my apartment is at over 1500 feet above sea level, even if all the ice on the planet melted this won't bother me. And I have a gun, so if any of those rich bastards try to escape their flooded beach houses and climb my mountain it's going to be an unpleasant wake up call.
I used to fight in this war. I used to try to convince people that it might be a good idea to at least ponder whether it could be right since, well, if it is, we're fucked 'cause we don't have a spare planet to go to when we screwed the pooch on this one. No longer. Screw this. Go ahead and drive your SUVs, I don't care anymore. Yes, we ruin this planet and maybe, hopefully actually, we make it uninhabitable for our own species.
It can only improve this planet in the long run.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Actually, even back in the 1970s there were more scientists who were inclined to believe in global warming than in global cooling. It is just that cooling was more interesting to put in the news...
For instance, Global warming was one of the more important topics of the Stockholm Conference in 1972 (the biggest conference on the environment in the 70's) , while global cooling wasn't even hinted at.
Of course not all of the world is warming right now.
Some parts of the world are indeed cooling (temporarily) because of warming having disrupting ocean currents that would otherwise warm those areas, or from warming having caused some areas to be cloudier and/or rainier.
That is why climatologists prefer to use the term "Climate Change" rather than "Global Warming".
Beside the effects of carbon compounds in the atmosphere, there is also the effect of increased aerosols from human activity and those do cause a bit of climate change in form of more clouds, which cool. It has been theorized that this had contributed significantly to the Ethiopian famine in the mid-1980s - again, the effect in one part of the system causing a different effect in another. Ethiopia got a draught while another part of Africa got more rain. :-P ) and that is only because how they are artificial clouds - and clouds cool. Back in September 11, 2001, airplanes across the USA were grounded causing the airspace above USA to be clear from condensation trails for the first time in decades - which had a measurable effect on the weather that day. But it was back to "normal" a couple of days later.
But while carbon emissions take thirty or more years to make a measurable difference in the atmosphere, aerosol cooling is very temporary. The white condensation trails from airplanes do contribute to cooling (cue the tin foil hat people
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/s...
I cite that just because its funny and underscores what is going on.
You have some people saying reasonable things and talking about the science. And then you have dumb journalists running around like chickens with their heads cut off... collecting the most extreme quotes they possibly can to get the most insane headlines.
I'm not interested in the alarmism and I'm not alone. Millions are just tuning it out. I think that political tactic and media tactic has reached the point of diminishing returns.
Moving forward, I'd just like the science... with full acknowledgment of the uncertainties and no attempt to advocate for any given solution.
Just give me the information. Bias the results to try and get a panic reaction out of me and there's a good chance I'll spot it and then rather than convince me, I'll just distrust your paper.
I'm not anti environmental improvement. However, I'd like that improvement to be more than a ploy. There are a lot of alterior motives in this issue at this point.
1. The politicians can use it as a weapon. Al Gore didn't get into this for nothing.
2. The corporations love it because they get massive pork spending for green projects. The money going to GE etc for this stuff was unheard of before the AGW issue.
3. The Universities get too much grant money to not want to keep the fire burning on this issue. The issue cools and the grant money falls off with it.
4. The UN sees the issue as a means to political relevance outside the security council.
5. Various little countries can use the issue to justify demands for aid. The "help us because of colonialism" etc has sort of worn off. Help us because AGW is relevant.
6. The AGW issue can be used to justify protectionist policies against East Asian economies in China and India.
It goes on and on and on and on and on. So... I just want the science without the politics and the advocacy and the lobbying and the gaslighting and the endless fucking pathos.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I have to say, everytime I visit a beach somewhere it's nigh impossible not to see some garbage littered here and there. Either by visitors or by garbage washed ashore. Back in the 80ies I remember seeing nice beaches without garbage, but I'd bet money that they have become rare in the mean time.
We are fucking up our planet for no good reason - to me there is no doubt about it.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
It will all be better if Jeremy Corbyn is PM .... oh wait
Sounds like college.
~X~
I don't believe you.
Your beliefs make no difference to reality. Are you hoping to fairy wish climate change away? - "timmy you can do it! you just have to believe!"
In the 70's it was going to be an ice age, now it is going to be a heat wave.
In the 1990's climate deniers told us that the climate wasn't warming.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was because of the sun.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was due to gravitational lensing.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was due to- hey look over there! It's a vast green conspiracy!
They were wrong.
Then they told us the slight dip in the rate of warming was magically a reset of the warming and that this disproved the laws of thermodynamics and model mumble mumble magic happens! Unicorns and Fairies!
They were wrong.
I tell you this in case you feel like comparing your credibility with the credibility of the science again.
Is the data real or manipulated?
I once had a guy here claim that the measured rate of warming was insignificant and posted a link to woodfortrees to prove it. I went and looked. It turns out, he'd carefully selected a narrow band of measures along the equator (where the warming is the least) and excluded the temperate and polar zones to reduce the warming measures. In short he lied.
I pointed this out to him, and he disappeared. Yet I have seen, several times, the same link re-appear.
So: who is manipulating data?
It's been clear for many years that a new human-caused, non-falsifiable future environmental apocalypse hypothesis is needed.
Remember how we changed out products and behavior in relation to the ozone depletion and acid rain....
"I don't believe you."
"Then you're an idiot."
=======
And there, folks, is the attitude that The True Believers have towards anyone who questions their religion/hypothesis/politics, despite the fact that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. They definitely don't have the latter, so responses are as above or 'shut up' or 'fuck off' or...
Renewables work NOW and build up faster and are cheaper than nukes.
But let me ask this: if we move balls-out for nuclear, does that include Iran and North Korea? If not, then we can't use nuclear: you admit it is too dangerous.
Nuclear only starts producing when 100% complete. Wind and solar can work as soon as you get the first generator hooked to the grid.
We don't have time to wait for nuclear to be built, never mind the "next generation, totally safe, honest, and not like we said about last generation, really" nuclear to be perfected.
Looks like we have two idiots!
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The obsession with the belief that there are ideal environmental conditions is a Sisyphean task. And I'm convinced that the people behind it want it that way because it keeps the masses from rising above their current station in life. Case in point: why aren't the people opposed to the use of Golden Rice being called racists eight ways to Sunday?
I'm scared of the 18-year Pause.
What if the climate doesn't ever start changing again??
Just like decreasing ice-caps, sea-level rises, and increasingly chaotic weather. And threatening changes in major ocean currents .. like the atlantic conveyor belt (see e.g. http://www.carbonbrief.org/blo...).
And they could be mand-made to ... and in all probability are. Except in the US of course. There they're just "God hugging us closer".
here we go again with the dire climate change proclamations. This is nothing more than an excuse to gin up more research money. The only "evidence" they have comes from highly suspect computer models that can be twisted this way or that to reach whatever conclusion furthers your agenda.
I also believe that there is an underlying anti-capitalism thread that blames all of this supposed climate change on human progress.
Are there things we can do to cause less pollution? Of course and we should be that where it is practical. I want to live in a clean world as much as the next person does.
Everyone just needs to take a deep breath and relax. The world is not going to end tomorrow, despite predictions to the contrary.
And there, folks, is the attitude that The True Believers have towards anyone who questions their religion/hypothesis/politics, despite the fact that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. They definitely don't have the latter, so responses are as above or 'shut up' or 'fuck off' or...
You are confusing "extraordinary claims" with "extraordinary impacts". One is a scientific term, the other an economic term. The fact that CO2 will acidify the ocean is elementary school chemistry (my kid did a science fair project to demonstrate it in 5th grade). It really isn't rocket science. The impact on the ocean food chain is also very well documented (which is what the article is about), but it is not an extreme claim - it was predicted back in the mid 1800s and wasn't particularly controversial then.
To give a completely different example, an asteroid impact destroying civilisation is not a extraordinary claim if you have any familiarity with the fossil record and basic mechanics, but it would certainly have an extraordinary um impact.
You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
If science is correct and climate change is real and is being caused by humans, then doing something about it means everybody gets to live. If the climate change deniers are wrong, then everything dies.
Sorry but while I absolutely agree that we should take climate change seriously and do what we can to minimize the effect what you say is clearly not even vaguely correct. The Earth has been through natural climate change cycles in the past and all the species now on the planet have survived such changes.
What none of these dire predictions seem to take into account is that climate change should open up new areas where plants, coral reefs etc. can grow. 10,000 years ago the planet was in the grip of an ice age. Much of northern Europe and North America was underneath a giant ice sheet which melted. As the climate warmed the regions favourable for plants moved and species started growing in different areas as the climate changed. The problem with man-made climate change is that it might happen a lot faster than most natural change (except for volcanic eruptions, meteor strikes etc. which are even faster). Life has survived all of these disasters and it will survive man-made climate change as will we (unless we do something really stupid like start a nuclear war) but it might be very unpleasant.
What I would love to see is some sort of balanced, objective look at climate change. Hyped up articles like this that are clearly interested in pushing one point of view regardless of evidence convince nobody and risk a "boy who cried wolf" effect where people will ignore real warnings of problems due to climate change.
Sorry but while I absolutely agree that we should take climate change seriously and do what we can to minimize the effect what you say is clearly not even vaguely correct. The Earth has been through natural climate change cycles in the past and all the species now on the planet have survived such changes.
If the ocean dies, everything dies. That's not hyperbole, it's reality.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
The Permian-Triassic extinction event didn't just kill of 90% of all life. It killed of 90% of all species - that is, it killed off 100% of 90% of species. Of the remaining 10%, it killed off 99% of some species, 98% of others, and so on. It was frighteningly close to sterilizing the planet.
Humans do have the capability to actually do that - sterilize the planet. It's highly unlikely, but possible if the entire world economy were dedicated to that - and it could be, as a side effect, because of two important effects:
This means there will be a steadily growing number of people who are willing and able to do an increasing amount of damage in pursuit of their own goals, and if those goals result in hugely profitable corporations that can influence (or ignore) government policy throughout the world, extinction of all life could then become the main product of nearly all human activity. And humans are pretty good at accomplishing their goals.
To be fair, at some point the consequences will be obvious and the number of people willing to continue will fall. But that's as likely to be too late as not - see Rapa Nui (Easter Island) for what tends to happen then. And see Venus for how bad it could get.
This is disingenuous and you know it. It's like pointing back at that one oddly warm day back in February and saying "it hasn't gotten any warmer since then!".
Here is a global mean for you then......
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/h...
Bullshit.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
What I would love to see is some sort of balanced, objective look at climate change. Hyped up articles like this that are clearly interested in pushing one point of view regardless of evidence convince nobody and risk a "boy who cried wolf" effect where people will ignore real warnings of problems due to climate change.
What you seem to not realize is that the mass extinction events of the past made extinct the most dominant species of the time (dinosaurs for example). Guess what the most dominant species is today? Humans.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
The Republicans hate the Earth and want to see it destroyed.
Yeah, yeah, and the Democrats all have wings and play harps, we get it.
Get lost, you partisan fool.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
If the ocean dies, everything dies. That's not hyperbole, it's reality.
Yes but my point is that there is no evidence provided that this will happen. If you look at one region of the ocean, throw in your climate change model and come up with a prediction that none of the species living there now will survive then you do not have enough evidence to conclude that all life in the oceans will die.
To conclude that all life in the ocean will die you need to also check to make sure that the new conditions are not favourable to other species which might not be present in that region at the moment but which might move there if the conditions changed. Hence my point: conditions have changed in the past and life has adapted to them, not by evolution but by relocating, if you do not factor this in then you cannot conclude that the oceans will die.
What you seem to not realize is that the mass extinction events of the past made extinct the most dominant species of the time (dinosaurs for example).
Only there are two flaws with that. First the dinosaurs did not go extinct and are still around today only smaller and with a different name: birds. Secondly we have one evolutionary advantage: intelligence. This lets us adapt far, far more rapidly to change than evolution and may even help reverse climate change: either by reducing our environmental impact or by geo-engineering.
Climate change is a concern but one that stops far short of the end of life on earth. It may cause massive disruption, a drop in the standard of living etc. but the extinction of all humans? That's an extraordinary claim without anything approaching extraordinary evidence to support it.
I have twenty years working in databases and I can't think what could possibly qualify me to understand climatology.
I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
It's unnecessary to pedantically interpret "the oceans will die" as "100.000% of all life in the oceans will die" although I appreciate it does grant you licence to rattle off on a pointless tangent.
We couldn't exterminate all life in Earth's oceans if we tried. That doesn't mean that the ocean can't "die" for all intents and purposes; imagine if plankton began dying out. Naturally something else will step straight into its place.. unless it doesn't.
Earth's oceans are under a range of increasing anthropomorphic pressures. Some of these pressures are suppressing organisms whilst others flourish to the detriment of the oceans' biodiversity.
In terms of habitable areas of ocean it's conceivable that one day there may be nowhere left to swim away to.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
But that global mean shows nearly 1 degree of warming over a century...
You would be well and truly fucked today, or likely not exist, if everyone hundreds of years ago had that attitude.
I guess it's great that you're as self-obsessed as an Objectivist, but fortunately most people are not.
There's been 18 years with no warming.
Stop lying. Do you think we don't have the temperature records?
In terms of habitable areas of ocean it's conceivable that one day there may be nowhere left to swim away to.
True, it is possible to conceive of such a possibility. What is lacking is evidence that such a possibility is at all likely. If you want to make an extraordinary claim like that then you need extraordinary evidence to back it up. Previous climate changes have not caused the oceans to die so why is the recent climate change is so much different to past events some of which, like volcanic eruptions, have happened on very short time scales.
OK, fine. Unlike religion, science is open to being questioned. Go learn all you can learn, and prove your point through experimentation, or prove to yourself that you're wrong in the process. Speculation is just pissing in the wind.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
And yet you copy-paste the same strawman of lies and deceptions.
Yep, I've standardised a response to climate denier liespew questioning the reliability of climate science. Suck it up.
The fact is that most of what 'climate science' predicted hasn't come to pass. The models they created are terrible at prediction, and have failed to match reality
You're lying again.
In the 1990's climate deniers told us that the climate wasn't warming.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was because of the sun.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was due to gravitational lensing.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was due to- hey look over there! It's a vast green conspiracy!
They were wrong.
Then they told us the slight dip in the rate of warming was magically a reset of the warming and that this disproved the laws of thermodynamics and model mumble mumble magic happens! Unicorns and Fairies!
They were wrong.
I tell you this in case you feel like comparing your credibility with the credibility of the science again.
Lying again.
If the ocean dies, everything dies. That's not hyperbole, it's reality.
Yes but my point is that there is no evidence provided that this will happen. If you look at one region of the ocean, throw in your climate change model and come up with a prediction that none of the species living there now will survive then you do not have enough evidence to conclude that all life in the oceans will die. Of course not all life in the ocean will die. The question is will it change enough that we wll die?
That being said, I have no doubt t all that humanity will destroy itself one way or another, Whether it be through some of us agitating and wishing for it, like the "rapture me and to hell with the rest of y'all " types, or the inability of most of us to see 6 inches beyond our noses, or mankind's intense desire to kill other humans ends up taking us out. Maybe a combination of all three.
But unless we manage to completely sterilize the entire planet, life of some sort will survive. Perhaps eventually thrive, and at some point it will wonder about that thin global radioactive layer in the ground,
Now eat, drink, and be merry folks.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Hell, why not evolve ourselves? Mankind in the past used to be just fine out in the winter snow with only their pelt to keep them warm.
ROFL. Do you know what evolution looks like during mass extinctions? It means 99.999% of a particular species dies, leaving behind the freaks that have some genetic trait allows them to survive.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
The the leading "authority" on "man made global warming" was the IPCC. The IPCC's hockey stick graph was totally discredited as junk science and the data Was completely manipulated to push the Rothchild Agenda [youtube.com]
Stop lying.
It's funny how repeat what CNN, Foxnews, and MSNBC tells you like a good little parrot. Except all of your evidence has been discredited as junk science.
Yes I've been brainwashed by TV channels that aren't available in my country.Sounds plausible. How did they do it? Satellites beaming down special rays? Should I wear a tinfoil hat?
Yes you're right - denialists are swindlers. Thanks for sharing.
Renamed by the Republicans to sound less scary.
My Transformation Website
Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
Kind of shows how unappreciative you are for what you've been given.
You gotta clue me in there AC - what exactly have I been given?
That you would just say 'fuck it, people suck.' So, if people suck, stop sucking.
This is getting weird. There is no way, shape or form that I can eliminate the human nature in humans. Maybe you shouold ask them to stop sucking. Regardless, My comments were on the inherent properties of humans, not an any suckle they may have.
There is no universe where you will prove that green house gases are a good thing.
The heat retention nature of the so called greenhouse gases are critical to life. They are necessary to help regulate the insolation we receive, keep the earth warm enough to support life, and are an important factor in making life as we know it possible.
Now too much of greenhouse gas percentage in the atmosphere is a different story. Esspecially at the rate we're pumping it into it. We're taking a lot of carbon that was sequester over aeons, and releasing it as CO2 very rapidly. A lot of life forms on earth today may not survive. One of them might be homo sapiens sapiens.
You're in denial. At least the Christians appreciate the earth, in theory anyway.
Quite the theory. Most I know, and the ones I was raised with were more in line with this fine fellow:
http://kevincraig.us/dominion....
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
In the 1960's the scientists were talking of the coming man-made Ice Age. In the 2000's to now, we hear of Global Warming, turning PC to be "Climate Change". Check the records and we surprisingly find "CHANGE HAPPENS". Ice melts. Ice forms. Oceans go UP and DOWN more than just tidal changes. Continents move and oceans change in it all. Some life adapts. Some doesn't and goes away. Few living today will see 2100, but we all need to have a health, but not alarmed concern. ... If you need to go to the store and get groceries, or go to work, DO IT. Make local decisions that effect global systems. That includes electing 'reasonable individuals' to political office. Be a good consumer (buy what you need, but don't over do it ... insist on sustainable packaging, agriculture, etc, etc). Be a good steward of what God gives you (no matter what name, if any, you give to Him).
... "When you pry the source from my cold dead hands."
Unfortunately this is not the case. As the ocean acidifies it becomes harder and harder for coral and shellfish and many plankton to grow. This affects everything in the ocean. It's not just the ocean temperature that's changing.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
http://www.newser.com/story/18...
What utter crap.
Birds may or may not have evolved from dinosaurs, but that does not make them dinosaurs for any reasonable definition of bird or dinosaur. Perhaps you also think that whales are land mammals.
If there was not some significant event in the past there would be no reason for these small feathered derivatives to survive while the actual dinos died out. I get that it's fun for misinformed science teachers to throw in the erroneous "birds are dinosaurs" factoid along with "centrifugal force doesn't exist" and "glass is liquid" for wide-eyed students but let's leave it there. To state that a particular class of life has survived by pointing to a far-removed derivative is a cop out and adds nothing useful to discussions about extinction.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
> The Earth has been through natural climate change cycles in the past and all the species now on the planet have survived such changes
That's great. And where do all the species or civilisations that didn't survive the changes, and are therefore not now on the planet fit in to your worldview?
The balanced, objective look at climate change exists and has for years. You not finding it or even looking for it (as it's not difficult to find) seems to indicate you're not honestly interested in reading it. Or you are inept at using the internet. You choose.
What none of these dire predictions seem to take into account is that climate change should open up new areas where plants, coral reefs etc. can grow.
Yeah, no one has looked into that at all. Maybe you can help out on the next set of IPCC reports.