Global Warming...Fact or Fiction?

[Officer of Engineers]

I am asking you to explain a simple fact - why did carbon deficiency destroy existing trees only in selected areas? - given that CO2 concentrations - despite being affected by local environment, are largely global. How does the African Savannah live side by side with the Congo basin?
http://grasslandsnrazov.weebly.com/u...7522_orig.jpeg

http://www.srl.caltech.edu/personnel...ere/whemap.gif
Matter of fact, how does any tree (of forestal descent) survive?

As simple as there is desert and ice caps. There is a concentration of CO2 at parts of the earth that encourages plant growth. If water vapour can concentrate as clouds and rain (or lack there of), so can CO2.

Nothing that could be contradicted with that link.

Puts fact to my claims that there is a hell of a lot less CO2 totday than there was during the times of the dinosaurs. We have a hell of a lot less jungle and a lot more desert today than during the times of the dinosaurs.

[Officer of Engineers]

Here's a plant life map of the Jurassic.

http://australianmuseum.net.au/the-j...lion-years-ago

Puts both of yours combined to shame.

[NoOneKnows]

As simple as there is desert and ice caps. There is a concentration of CO2 at parts of the earth that encourages plant growth. If water vapour can concentrate as clouds and rain (or lack there of), so can CO2.

Very poor and misleading analogy.
I would encourage you to put fact to the claim that the Congo Basin (or equivalent) has lower CO2 levels than the neighbouring Savannah (or equivalent). And that trees are known to die (at whatever rate) in such an atmosphere.

Puts fact to my claims that there is a hell of a lot less CO2 totday than there was during the times of the dinosaurs.

Which I didn't even contest. CO2 levels are back on their way up as my graph showed and thanks to you and other people like you that process ain't slowing down a bit.
But you would do good to remember that Sea levels were 500 feet higher than where they are today.

[Officer of Engineers]

Very poor and misleading analogy.
I would encourage you to put fact to the claim that the Congo Basin (or equivalent) has lower CO2 levels than the neighbouring Savannah (or equivalent). And that trees are known to die (at whatever rate) in such an atmosphere.

Why should I? It changes nothing. The time span I'm talking about is a few hundred million years.

Which I didn't even contest. CO2 levels are back on their way up as my graph showed and thanks to you and other people like you that process ain't slowing down a bit.

So freaking what? We're nowhere even coming close to the dinosaur era.

But you would do good to remember that Sea levels were 500 feet higher than where they are today.

Again, so what? The earth got rid of 5 times of the CO2 that we have today all by herself.

[NoOneKnows]

Why should I? It changes nothing. The time span I'm talking about is a few hundred million years.
So freaking what? We're nowhere even coming close to the dinosaur era.

Again, so what? The earth got rid of 5 times of the CO2 that we have today all by herself.

I see, Amazon rain forest exists in a different time dimension.

Puts a towel on the claim of 'In a few hundred million years, there won't be anything but bacteria on this friggin planet. Not enough CO2 to support plant life. No plant life. No animal life.'

So that means billions of displaced people, destruction of large farm lands augmenting food shortage, disruption of normal evaporation/precipitation cycles killing the rest of crops and so on.

[Officer of Engineers]

I see, Amazon rain forest exists in a different time dimension.

All the rain forests combined today ain't even coming close to a quarter of the Jurrasic.

Puts a towel on the claim of 'In a few hundred million years, there won't be anything but bacteria on this friggin planet. Not enough CO2 to support plant life. No plant life. No animal life.'

It certainly puts your claims of global disaster to a fucking lie.

So that means billions of displaced people, destruction of large farm lands augmenting food shortage, disruption of normal evaporation/precipitation cycles killing the rest of crops and so on.

Sorry, I didn't see this before.

So what else is fucking new? The Turks moved West because of a Volcano. We lost over a million people because of a Tsuamni. So we're fighting fucking wars over land again.

But I ain't going to pay a lazy ass straw carrier in Africa $600 a year just so I can burn the wood I cut for sub -30C winter and just so my horses can fart. If that lazy straw carrying African wants my money, he can cut my own firewood for me and take my horses to the slaughter barn but I ain't paying him for doing shit all.

Oh btw, WHAT FARMLAND SHORTAGE??? FOR FUCK SAKES, EVEN IF GLOBAL WARMING COMES EVEN TO 10& OF AL GORE'S PREDICTION (More like 0.02%), we tripple if not quadripple the Parries output, not to mention the Tundra just became another wheat field!

[NoOneKnows]

All the rain forests combined today ain't even coming close to a quarter of the Jurrasic.

Which has nothing to do with your cries of CARBON FALLING! Just accept it already. You were just dicking around with the carbon claim. We wouldn't have to go through a page when we both know that is nothing but a pile of flaming poop.

It certainly puts your claims of global disaster to a fucking lie.

Righto.
OOE: Carbon fall. Tree die die!!!
NOK: Um, Carbon increase?
OOE: So what?
NOK: So tree not die?
OOE: Global Warming is a foking lie!!!!!!
NOK: :o RIP LOGIC

Sorry, I didn't see this before.

So what else is fucking new? The Turks moved West because of a Volcano. We lost over a million people because of a Tsuamni. So we're fighting fucking wars over land again.

But I ain't going to pay a lazy ass straw carrier in Africa $600 a year just so I can burn the wood I cut for sub -30C winter and just so my horses can fart. If that lazy straw carrying African wants my money, he can cut my own firewood for me and take my horses to the slaughter barn but I ain't paying him for doing shit all.

Oh btw, WHAT FARMLAND SHORTAGE??? FOR FUCK SAKES, EVEN IF GLOBAL WARMING COMES EVEN TO 10& OF AL GORE'S PREDICTION (More like 0.02%), we tripple if not quadripple the Parries output, not to mention the Tundra just became another wheat field!

Ah! Finally we get to the crux. That's what it comes down to in the end. The Green Tax.

[tbm3fan]

Something to play with. The interactive stuff is on the actual page as it doesn't copy over to here.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/10/opinio...cts/index.html

(CNN)I'm recently back from the Marshall Islands -- one of the low-lying Pacific island nations that literally could be wiped off the map by climate change and rising seas.

Climate change gets couched, especially by skeptics, as an intangible, far-off issue. But meet people who are terrified their country -- everything they know -- will be drowned beneath the waves, and you can see that this is a crisis, and one that must be addressed immediately.

I'll write more soon about my time on the islands -- and about the surprising U.S. community where some Marshallese people already are taking refuge from floods. These are topics, by the way, you voted for me to explore as part of my "2 degrees" series on climate change. For now, here's a look at some of the scariest data about how much ocean levels could rise, and when.

We're talking about the future here, so estimates vary by source, but the bottom line is this: Our actions today will create the world future generations will have to inhabit.

I hope that's a world that includes the Marshall Islands and Miami, Bangladesh and London.

Take a look at these facts, and please let me know what you think in the comments.

1. Seas already are rising because of climate change.
2. It's happening faster than scientists expected, and the collapse of the enormous West Antarctic Ice Sheet now "appears unstoppable," according to NASA.

3. By the end of the century, scientists expect seas to rise 0.4 to 1.2 meters (1.3 to 3.9 feet), depending on how much we humans keep warming the atmosphere.
4. Maybe that doesn't sound like much -- but 147 million to 216 million people worldwide can expect to see their homes submerged or put at risk for regular flooding by 2100.
5. In Bangladesh, for example, 15 million people would be at risk for displacement if sea levels rose just 1 meter, or 3 feet. And more than 10% of the country would be underwater.
6. Some remote, island nations also would start disappearing -- since many, including Kiribati, the Maldives and the Marshall Islands, sit just above sea level.
7. Some "climate refugees" from these countries won't have anywhere to go. International laws don't protect them, so industrialized countries -- those contributing to climate change -- won't have to let them cross their borders to seek asylum.

8. This is a financial concern as well. Rising seas pose a serious economic threat to the millions living in at-risk coastal cities.
9. In terms of dollars at risk, Guangzhou, China, in the Pearl River Delta, is more vulnerable to sea-level rise than any other city in the world, according to the World Bank. Many of the most vulnerable cities should look familiar, especially to Americans. After Guangzhou, Miami, New York and New Orleans are next.
10. Miami is in serious trouble. To imagine its possible futures, play with this map from Climate Central.

11. New York doesn't look good, either.

12. And here's the possible future of Houston, another low-lying city.

13. Sea levels are slow to respond to the warming climate -- so the most troublesome effects may not be seen for centuries. Even if warming is limited to 2 degrees, which is the international goal, seas could be expected to rise nearly 3 meters (9.8 feet) by 2300, according to the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.
14. And crossing certain "tipping points" -- such as the melting of Greenland's ice sheet -- could cause seas to rise much more dramatically in the long term.
15. If Greenland melts completely, which could happen in 140 years, according to "Six Degrees," by science writer Mark Lynas, then "Miami would disappear entirely, as would most of Manhattan." "Central London would be flooded. Bangkok, Bombay and Shanghai would also lose most of their area," he writes in that book. "In all, half of humanity would have to move to higher ground."

But here's the good news: All of these risks are lessened -- or eliminated -- if we stop burning fossil fuels and chopping down carbon-gulping forests. It's possible to address this crisis.

There are signs of hope. This week, Germany's Angela Merkel, for example, pressed world leaders to boost their pledges to cut carbon emissions ahead of international negotiations. The so-called "climate chancellor" wants industrialized countries to end fossil fuel use by 2100, according to The Guardian.

Future generations will judge our action, or lack thereof, harshly.

They'll have every right to do so.

Because we will help determine what the coasts -- and the world -- look like for centuries.

[TopHatter]

Let's keep it a bit more polite in here people, if you please

[Officer of Engineers]

Which has nothing to do with your cries of CARBON FALLING! Just accept it already. You were just dicking around with the carbon claim. We wouldn't have to go through a page when we both know that is nothing but a pile of flaming poop.

And you can't read. I've said nothing of today, you took my post and jumped with it. Even you admit it yourself. There is a hell of a lot less CO2 today than when there was in the Jurassic. So, who is the stupid idiot here?

Righto.
OOE: Carbon fall. Tree die die!!!
NOK: Um, Carbon increase?
OOE: So what?
NOK: So tree not die?
OOE: Global Warming is a foking lie!!!!!!
NOK: :o RIP LOGIC

Oh fucking please! You took one post out of context and jumped with it. It is so fucking simple that you even can't grasp it. The Earth is warming! It is nothing new. We're between Ice Ages!!!!! And there is absolutely ZERO that man can do anything about!!!!!

Ah! Finally we get to the crux. That's what it comes down to in the end. The Green Tax.

You're from India. That explains a hell of a lot. You will be the recipiant of my carbon payment - if I allow it ... and I won't.

[TopHatter]

And you can't read. I've said nothing of today, you took my post and jumped with it. Even you admit it yourself. There is a hell of a lot less CO2 today than when there was in the Jurassic. So, who is the stupid idiot here?

Oh fucking please! You took one post out of context and jumped with it. It is so fucking simple that you even can't grasp it. The Earth is warming! It is nothing new. We're between Ice Ages!!!!! And there is absolutely ZERO that man can do anything about!!!!!

Sir, please tone down your language. Thank you.

[NoOneKnows]

And you can't read. I've said nothing of today, you took my post and jumped with it. Even you admit it yourself. There is a hell of a lot less CO2 today than when there was in the Jurassic. So, who is the stupid idiot here?

Still nothing on how Rain-forests morph into grassland due to carbon-strangulation. You know what, forget it. I know you cannot prove it.
Grasslands primary cause of formation is rain-deprivation such as caused by the Rockies onto the Prairies. Check any grassland today and its annual average rainfall versus that of any forest.
In Jurassic era, there was indeed a whole lot of Carbon, but it also had a ton of oxygen. Earth's slowly cooling down causing tectonic activity to slide (pun!!). Increasing CO2 content with completely unrelated and irresponsible activities of fossil-fuel burning will not compensate for this loss but serve to destabilize the environment humans evolved into.
PS Getting into a pissing contest with me is only going to end up making you look like an idiot (more than now) but the moderator has asked to desist and so I will.

Oh fucking please! You took one post out of context and jumped with it. It is so fucking simple that you even can't grasp it. The Earth is warming! It is nothing new. We're between Ice Ages!!!!! And there is absolutely ZERO that man can do anything about!!!!!

Except that we have done something about it,


and it is anything but natural planet cycle.



This is much better
What's Really Warming the World

You're from India. That explains a hell of a lot. You will be the recipiant of my carbon payment - if I allow it ... and I won't.

What carbon payment. I didn't see no carbon payment. Where do I sign up.

[Doktor]

http://www.attn.com/stories/2628/bil...paign=internal

[Parihaka]

I can't even be bothered with the GISS chart, Steve Goddard has pointed out some very inconvenient truths about them, but here's a longer carbon/temperature sequence for you

[Red Team]

I can't even be bothered with the GISS chart, Steve Goddard has pointed out some very inconvenient truths about them, but here's a longer carbon/temperature sequence for you

[ATTACH=CONFIG]39835[/ATTACH]

Pari,

Of course from a "deep time" perspective, given anthropogenic CO2 rising and requisite temperature increases, the Earth and the state of life itself would be, on the whole, perfectly fine. But the question is, would we be fine? It's no coincidence that Homo Sapiens---and also the beginnings of modern civilization just a few hundred thousand years after---evolved and thrived in a period of record low CO2 levels and a correspondingly stable average temperature trend.