Yeah....cause once it oxidizes its harmless right?
So um...what does it oxidize into?
Yeah....cause once it oxidizes its harmless right?
So um...what does it oxidize into?
plus, if you would be so kind as to specify which specific historical events your referencing, i'm sure we'll find even more ignorance on your part for us to correct.
could you mayhaps be refering to a local warming/cooling in europe? possibly the dinosaurs when the entire atmosphere was dramatically different (Oxygen was ~40% higher than today, as well CO2 high enough that we (humans) wouldnt be able to breath comfortably). or some other popular denier myth?
historically being "many many thousands of years ago" and "it slowly warmed up over a period of many thousands of years".
not "right now today" and "it happened in the past century and half, ever since we started burning oil to make our economies run"
that's a not so subtle, and very important distiction.
yes, seaside communities may be able to adapt....if deniers dont get in the way, such as North Carolina barring state agencies, BY LAW, from using observations and predictions of sea rise related to global warming to make those same preparations and adaptions you just mentioned. They literally made it state law to cover their eyes and ear and ignore and do nothing.
Bear in mind just how high 3 feet average rise is though. that's a TREMENDOUS amount of water. its not just about the basements that are now flooded, or docks that need raised. there's also the dramatically higher storm surges, that will now push even further inland.
your indifference is nothing but a reflection of your ignorance.
whcih is then backed up by your second and thrid comments, which are just dumb beyond comprehension. no one has ever denied that natural warming occurs.
the only reason you dont understand is because rather than correct your ignorance by learning why the paradox exists, instead you stopped and said "Nope, I quit."
Actually global warming goes back to the 1830s if not sooner. So it's closer to 200 than 30 years.
Secondly, it's happening right before your eyes. What more verification do you need?
Unless youre one of those who everytime a new line of observation comes along further reinforcing it* you say "lalalalalalalalalalallalalallala cant hear you its not happening".
(*we're up to what now, something 30 odd different lines of observational evidence that either support GW or disprove the deniers favorite pet explanations, between atmospheric temps at various altitudes, polar ice, tree rings, ancient gas samples in rock and ice cores, ocean temps, storm frequency/severity, solar activity/output cycles, etc?)
blah blah science has been wrong before blah blah.
That's almost, but not quite, the most ignorant position you could take.
Ice extent is really just area, which combined with thickness gives you volume, so i dont know if i'd say its that bad as an indicator. It's certainly the most visible visually.
Another really good indicator though is Age or Permanence.
Used to be the majority of the ice was old, meaning its more or less permenant, and only some of hte ice, mostly around the edges was refreshed (melted and re-added) every year. Now more and more of it is young ice, and less and less is "old" ice, which also feeds into the "more is melting every year" observation.
"smarter places" ? Just precisely why do you think those cities developed where they did in the first place?
A tremendous amount of human civilization has always centered around sea ports.
All you're doing is suggesting moving the location of the sea ports.
Its no more or less smart than the original locations.
And you're also talking about moving more than half of hte world's population, probably around 5 billion people (~3 bil. lives near the current coast, but a 230ft sea rise would go inland hundreds of miles, ballooning the numbers even more). And not just the people, but the infrastructure, the housing, and a not insignificant amount of the agriculture that supports them. Not to mention a lot of the sea port population is sustained not by agriculture, but also by aquaculture, ie, the ocean, both for food and jobs. But if the coast moves inland a few hundred miles it will take time for sea life to colonize and develope the new underwater territory, meaning fishermen need to go out further.
It also means the water column would be significantly deeper. Current coral reefs would die off from lack of sunlight, and all the sea life they support would also die off since it takes a long time for new coral to establish and grow. If sea levels rise and fall at their typical naturaly rates, the coral expands and contracts to match. But sudden and swift changes occur faster than the coral can grow, leaving reefs and all the life they support unsupported.
Yes, your situation is a hypothetical, but it's a perfect illustration of how much thought people -DON'T- put into this, how the effects are far more wide ranging than a lot of people think they are. Are we likely to see 250 ft sea rise? Not yet, not in the next century anyway. But we are likely to see 8-10ft of rise, and that alone will leed to dramatic changes to various ecosystems, both land and sea, particularly those occuring within narrow tolerances.
the entire point of the article was that it's a local phenomina. the massive influx of fresh water is causing a local rise due to the time it takes for it to completely mix and disperse into the global seas. we normally think of sea level being the same (minus tides and other local variations) worldwide, because we know that water "levels out", which is why this is interesting: it's another local variation to that concept*.
If you think of a river in a steady state, it's pretty much at the same level (albeit flowing down "hill" over a really long distance). Similar baseline concept.
Then consider the effects of a sudden deluge upstream, or in today's world a massive release from a dam upriver. Such a thing would cause a significant rise in the river level, but it takes time for it to work its way down the entire river. Similar concept as this here where a rise around Antarctica will take time to work its way out into the global seas and even here.
(*kind of like the Pacific and Atlantic oceans at either end of the Panama Canal being at different heights)
sadly, its already here.
case in point: the House science committee, staffed mostly by religious anti-science nuts.
or we could abandon earth and get off this rock before its too late and colonize the stars.
though then when we show up at galactic parties, everyone will turn their heads and hide their chuckles at the species that destroyed their own homeworld though ignorance.
And that right there is your ignorance.
A couple decades ago they figured out CFC's, specifically the chlorine in them, was making it really high up in the atmosphere, where it reacted with sunlight to destroy ozone molecules in an unending chain reaction. The thinning of the ozone layer, and even development of holes in it, was leading to increased UV radiation reaching the ground rather than being absorbed up there in the ozone layer. skin cancer rates were measurably increasing. These CFCs came predominantly from the refrigerants ("freon") we used in these new fangled air conditioners that had popped into use in the recent decades.
Now no one wanted to give up their A/C. It was the single biggest reason people began moving to the sun belt (population exploded down there, where it used to be very sparse). Everyone loves A/C. so instead we did a few things. we developed new coolants there was less reactive. we got better at trapping them and preventing them from escaping into the atmosphere (used to be common to just vent straight into the air before that).
and the result of a world wide effort and fundamental A/C industry changes was that the ozone recovered. it's a natural layer that barring outside influence will develope and hover around a set level on its own. once we figured out what was harming it, and removed that influence it pretty much went back to normal.
We (humanity) did that.
We created a world wide problem.
And then we fixed it.
And people have already forgotten about it.
But there is no reasont o think we can't do it again with GW.
We have the technology right now, today, to end nearly ALL human CO2 emissions.
It would still take several decades for the current trend to slow, stop, and even reverse, but eventually our actions would reach an equilibrium (assuming we havent already passed any of the theorized tipping points that leads to a new, unfavorable equilibrium).
But we could do it.
It's just a matter of political will.
And that's what people would obstruct. From the oil/gas companies who love their money, to the religious folks who think its blasphemy to think we could even affect God's Earth, to the politicians and tea partiers who would rather die young on a dead planet in the name of "Freedom! 'Merica. No taxes! F YA" cause they somehow think fixing it means no feedom at all and nothing but taxes.
Pure greed and ignorance all of it.
We already know what runaway global warming can do. We call it the pre-cambrian extinction event, when nonstop volcanic eruptions in Siberia lasted for thousands of years, causing runaway global warming that eventually killed 98% of all life on earth. Life itself nearly went extinct. (and its rather a miracle that it didnt, and that following events eventually triggered massive cooling that made the planet habitable for life as we know it). And that event, that warming, and the following extinctions, lasted longer than all of current human civilization has existed. And it took millions of years for life to recover and re-evolve.
But still: we could do it.
We could fix this problem before it's too late.
It's not a matter of ability or capability to do it, but simply the will to do so.
Or we oculd sit around with thumbs in our butts and do nothing, calling those who identify the problem and its potential "alarmists" and "radicals", and fear any change or technologies that would enable us to fix the problem.
Specifically the DOS version, not the windows one.
As I recall, the DOS version allowed you to speed up the game, while windows would not.
I used this feature to make tons of money and let changes stabilize overnight while I slept.
also, as weather patterns shift, it makes sense that some regions where its almsot cold enough to form ice become cold enough to form ice. and other nearby areas where its almost warm enough to melt become warm enough to melt.
these are local variations.
again: dont confuse local short term variations with long term global trends or averages.
The arctic ice isn't coming back because of GW.
the ice in the Arctic increased compared to two year ago, but 2 years ago was the lowest every recorded, a statistical outlier. this year, while much more than 2012, is still dramatically below the average of the past several decades.
the trendline is clearly downward.
1 or 2 data points dont overturn a several decade long trendline.
and that downward trendline exists because of global warming.
Overdrawn? But I still have checks left!