Global Warming and Extinction

The vast majority of scientists who study this stuff are in agreement that the planet is getting warmer. Not only that, they are in agreement that we are causing this by directly contributing to the release of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.

You can ignore the experts all you want of course.
 
Here is related article on the subject.

The scientists are unsure whether this drop in certain species is because of changing pH levels, or whether it is due to a combination of stress factors like warming, overfishing and eutrophication – which results from excess nutrients in water.

I cited the last two in the OP as the more pressing problem

Your quotation doesn't tell me why you think rapid CO2 changes would slow extinctions.

The article explains why, these critters help form the base of the food chain
 
That is quite a bold statement considering that this year is going to set a new temperature record.

You won't believe me if I told you so take it from a Nobel Laureate and find out why and how that bit of drama is fabricated. Follow the link in my earlier post.
 
Temperatures are rising and so are sea levels. Glaciers are retreating globally, weather patterns are changing, extreme events are becoming more common and the Antarctic Ice shelves are disappearing. These are warning signs mr CavLancer.

http://www.lindau-nobel.org/the-mainau-declaration-2015-on-climate-change/

^I give you 36 Nobel Laureates (100% of those present at the meeting in question) who disagree with your fella.
 
The middle of the Antarctic has not become a tropical paradise just because the planet has warmed a degree or so and the continental ice sheet is thickening, as it has done for goodness knows how long. The main ice sheet, however, is kept in place by the ice shelves around the outside of the continent and they are retreating with extremely alarming speed in places. The thickening of the central sheet may be speeding up due to increased precipitation. All the changes are explainable in the warming paradigm.

Sea levels are going up worldwide, due to warming of the ocean waters, not glacial run-off.
 
First global warming wasn't real. Then it wasn't caused by humans. Now it's caused by humans but it's actually a good thing. Are you guys going through the stages of grief or what is going on.
 
I really am going to base a lot of my upcoming concern from how much we punch through the 1998 record
I'm looking forward to hearing about the next 'pause' in global warming. Measured inexplicably as a 'trend' from 2015 onwards...
 
First global warming wasn't real. Then it wasn't caused by humans. Now it's caused by humans but it's actually a good thing. Are you guys going through the stages of grief or what is going on.

I wish I could upvote posts on cfc.
 
First global warming wasn't real. Then it wasn't caused by humans. Now it's caused by humans but it's actually a good thing. Are you guys going through the stages of grief or what is going on.

Spoiler :
sf80jXf.gif
 
First global warming wasn't real. Then it wasn't caused by humans. Now it's caused by humans but it's actually a good thing. Are you guys going through the stages of grief or what is going on.

I've always considered global warming to be both real and good for life in general
 
When does winning a Nobel Prize makes you magically qualified to pronounce on any and all science.

Individual scientists can be pretty stupid. That's why we rely on scientific consensus, arrived at by lots and lots of individual scientists working collaboratively or competitively.
 
http://phys.org/news/2015-11-rapid-plankton-growth-ocean-carbon.html

We're killing the planet, but it may not be because of CO2 - on the contrary, we may be slowing the rate of extinction with our contribution to a warming world. The more pressing problems are habitat destruction, over consumption and pollution.
To begin, we are not killing the planet. We are only making more difficult for humans to maintain their current lifestyle and numbers. The planet is doing just fine.
 
When does winning a Nobel Prize makes you magically qualified to pronounce on any and all science.

Individual scientists can be pretty stupid. That's why we rely on scientific consensus, arrived at by lots and lots of individual scientists working collaboratively or competitively.

Well that's right. good point. The guy in the link I prodided has all the graphs and states that you don't have to be a scientist to read the graphs, its all right there in front. He did know some inside stuff such as how they made the graph on heat to show rising temps when they haven't risen in 18 years. He show that 1998 was the hottest year on record and none since has been hotter.

He's really boring but I want to go watch again, such a common sense guy. Nothing hidden, laid it all out and abhorred the notion that the debate is over, that's not science, science is always progressing.

Boring guy, but refreshing.
 
It's not so much 'the debate isn't over', it's more figuring out where the extra heat is being buffered and what the knock-on effects are. There's an incredible intransigence to the idea that CO2 even is a significant greenhouse gas, so most of the public debate is about not believing simple physics.
 
Back
Top Bottom