Of course it wasn't the same sort of climate change we're experiencing now. It was a very abrupt cooling due to all of the material thrown into the atmosphere by the impact of the asteroid. It probably mostly fell back out in 10 or 20 years but by then all of the large land animals had gone extinct and the biosphere was irretrievably changed.
Of course climate change was (at least partially) responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs. You don't think an asteroid of that size hitting the Earth won't change the climate?
But without the addition of CO2 from human activity the releases from the natural sources would be absorbed by the environment keeping CO2 levels relatively stable like they've been for the last 600,000 years. As it is over half of the CO2 released by human activities gets absorbed but enough doesn't to raise the level in the atmosphere.
Well, the lifetime of any particular water molecule in the atmosphere is probably pretty short. But the point is that the level of water vapor in the atmosphere is self limiting. Air at a certain temperature and pressure can only hold so much water vapor before it precipitates out. Nothing humans do can change that.
Even if it continues to get warmer it would take thousands of years for Antarctica to completely melt. It averages a 5,000 feet thick and is over 13,000 feet in places. That's a big ice cube.
One other thing to be said about raw meat is that your young grain fed prime beef is a far cry from the tough gamey meat you get from a wild animal of indeterminate age. I think you'd prefer to have that meat cooked regardless of your preference now.
If the long term level of weather events changes in ways that are consistent with the theory of climate change then that supports the theory. It doesn't "prove" anything but it's one more piece of evidence among many.
Yes, there's lots of hyperbole on both sides of the issue. Lots of people who don't understand the science very well or who have political motivations making unsupportable statements. The complexity of climate theory makes it difficult for most people to take the time understand so it lends itself to that sort of stuff. I'm not sure what you can do about it though, I think it's largely just human nature.
To add a bit more to the ozone story the IR radiation that isn't captured in the stratosphere of course continues into the troposphere where it add a bit more energy to the situation. Ozone is also a greenhouse gas and human activities have increase the level of it in the troposphere so it's adding a bit to the overall global warming picture overall.
I've seen it before. Showing people saying stupid stuff does nothing to discredit the science. They aren't scientists. Bjorn Lomborg and Ross Gelbspan is not a climate scientists either. You get no argument from me that plenty of people are over the top on their beliefs but I think Penn & Teller cherry picked their cuts too (of course nearly everyone does that to some extent). Nothing in the video disproves the science of climate change.
The continental United States and Australia are of similar size, 8,080,464 km2 to 7,683,300 km2 and shape. If this storm crossed 1/3 of Australia it's equivalent to a dust storm from Oklahoma hitting Georgia and the Carolina's.
As is commonly said you can't attribute specific weather events to climate change. What climate change does is to change the chances of a specific weather event occurring from 5% to 10% for example (or 10% to 5% for that matter). Another way to look at it (using your hurricanes) is maybe instead of averaging a hurricane every 10 years you now average one every 8 years or alternatively maybe the average strength goes from 2.9 to 3.2 or some combination of that. One individual event doesn't prove anything but the average of all such events proves a lot. That's the difference between weather and climate.
Yes, the yearly carbon cycle releases a huge amount of CO2 then reabsorbs it. If humans weren't emitting excess CO2 the level of it in the atmosphere would go up and down 5-10 ppm in a yearly cycle but would remain around the same base yearly average. The increase in CO2 (and decrease in O2) in the atmosphere corresponds well with the amount of fossil fuels burned and deforestation that takes place.
Stratospheric cooling is largely due to ozone depletion because the major source of stratospheric heat is the IR radiation adsorbed by ozone. Increase CO2 also contributes to stratospheric cooling but I haven't got my head around the exact mechanism for that yet.
"However, nowadays, when I'm 21-ish my parents still keep pestering me about where I am and I _still_ don't tell them. Just goes to show parents never learn, ever."
Just wait till you have kids. You'll do the same things your parents did.
I've got news for you. Ocean acidification from high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is likely on the way to causing massive species extinction regardless of anything else we do in the oceans.
We're not talking about actual laws here but just the Oregon DOJ's interpretation of how to apply them. The actual laws are available here (although with the disclaimer that in the case of discrepancies the printed version is the official version).
Huh? I think the number is closer to 50 million people. The whole point of insurance is to spread the risk out so the relatively few who end up on the wrong end of the pool aren't drowned. The only way to make the current system work is to deny medical care to those who can't pay, a position I'm not will to take morally.
Of course lots of people in the US are denied medical care because of inability to pay, at least until their situation gets so dire they go to the emergency room where they have to help them. We all end up paying for that expensive care when spending 1/10th of that earlier might have resolved the situation.
The document is question is not the law but the Oregon DOJ's interpretation of it for practical application by other state agencies. The actual laws are available somewhere in the links on this page.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course it wasn't the same sort of climate change we're experiencing now. It was a very abrupt cooling due to all of the material thrown into the atmosphere by the impact of the asteroid. It probably mostly fell back out in 10 or 20 years but by then all of the large land animals had gone extinct and the biosphere was irretrievably changed.
Exactly!
Of course climate change was (at least partially) responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs. You don't think an asteroid of that size hitting the Earth won't change the climate?
Don't worry, it won't be that cheap for too much longer.
Yeah, but you were still down in the valley. You should see what it looks like from the top of Half Dome.
What about the action we've taken over the last 200 years of burning massive amounts of fossil fuels without knowing the consequences?
But without the addition of CO2 from human activity the releases from the natural sources would be absorbed by the environment keeping CO2 levels relatively stable like they've been for the last 600,000 years. As it is over half of the CO2 released by human activities gets absorbed but enough doesn't to raise the level in the atmosphere.
Well, the lifetime of any particular water molecule in the atmosphere is probably pretty short. But the point is that the level of water vapor in the atmosphere is self limiting. Air at a certain temperature and pressure can only hold so much water vapor before it precipitates out. Nothing humans do can change that.
Even if it continues to get warmer it would take thousands of years for Antarctica to completely melt. It averages a 5,000 feet thick and is over 13,000 feet in places. That's a big ice cube.
No, just to the point where they had enough leisure time (not finding food) to worry about the ethics of their diet.
One other thing to be said about raw meat is that your young grain fed prime beef is a far cry from the tough gamey meat you get from a wild animal of indeterminate age. I think you'd prefer to have that meat cooked regardless of your preference now.
If the long term level of weather events changes in ways that are consistent with the theory of climate change then that supports the theory. It doesn't "prove" anything but it's one more piece of evidence among many.
Yes, there's lots of hyperbole on both sides of the issue. Lots of people who don't understand the science very well or who have political motivations making unsupportable statements. The complexity of climate theory makes it difficult for most people to take the time understand so it lends itself to that sort of stuff. I'm not sure what you can do about it though, I think it's largely just human nature.
You're welcome.
To add a bit more to the ozone story the IR radiation that isn't captured in the stratosphere of course continues into the troposphere where it add a bit more energy to the situation. Ozone is also a greenhouse gas and human activities have increase the level of it in the troposphere so it's adding a bit to the overall global warming picture overall.
I've seen it before. Showing people saying stupid stuff does nothing to discredit the science. They aren't scientists. Bjorn Lomborg and Ross Gelbspan is not a climate scientists either. You get no argument from me that plenty of people are over the top on their beliefs but I think Penn & Teller cherry picked their cuts too (of course nearly everyone does that to some extent). Nothing in the video disproves the science of climate change.
The continental United States and Australia are of similar size, 8,080,464 km2 to 7,683,300 km2 and shape. If this storm crossed 1/3 of Australia it's equivalent to a dust storm from Oklahoma hitting Georgia and the Carolina's.
As is commonly said you can't attribute specific weather events to climate change. What climate change does is to change the chances of a specific weather event occurring from 5% to 10% for example (or 10% to 5% for that matter). Another way to look at it (using your hurricanes) is maybe instead of averaging a hurricane every 10 years you now average one every 8 years or alternatively maybe the average strength goes from 2.9 to 3.2 or some combination of that. One individual event doesn't prove anything but the average of all such events proves a lot. That's the difference between weather and climate.
Yes, the yearly carbon cycle releases a huge amount of CO2 then reabsorbs it. If humans weren't emitting excess CO2 the level of it in the atmosphere would go up and down 5-10 ppm in a yearly cycle but would remain around the same base yearly average. The increase in CO2 (and decrease in O2) in the atmosphere corresponds well with the amount of fossil fuels burned and deforestation that takes place.
Stratospheric cooling is largely due to ozone depletion because the major source of stratospheric heat is the IR radiation adsorbed by ozone. Increase CO2 also contributes to stratospheric cooling but I haven't got my head around the exact mechanism for that yet.
I think if you investigate it you will find that annual volcanic emissions of CO2 are less than 5% of human emissions from burning fossil fuel.
"However, nowadays, when I'm 21-ish my parents still keep pestering me about where I am and I _still_ don't tell them. Just goes to show parents never learn, ever."
Just wait till you have kids. You'll do the same things your parents did.
I've got news for you. Ocean acidification from high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is likely on the way to causing massive species extinction regardless of anything else we do in the oceans.
Where's the "-1 tired slashdot cliche" mod when you need it?
We're not talking about actual laws here but just the Oregon DOJ's interpretation of how to apply them. The actual laws are available here (although with the disclaimer that in the case of discrepancies the printed version is the official version).
Huh? I think the number is closer to 50 million people. The whole point of insurance is to spread the risk out so the relatively few who end up on the wrong end of the pool aren't drowned. The only way to make the current system work is to deny medical care to those who can't pay, a position I'm not will to take morally.
Of course lots of people in the US are denied medical care because of inability to pay, at least until their situation gets so dire they go to the emergency room where they have to help them. We all end up paying for that expensive care when spending 1/10th of that earlier might have resolved the situation.
The document is question is not the law but the Oregon DOJ's interpretation of it for practical application by other state agencies. The actual laws are available somewhere in the links on this page.