Perhaps nature will find its balance by forcing a nuke exchange with DPRK? Darwin's law works in strange ways.
So if you are opposed to AGW, pray that Kim and tRump do something stupid.

Hmm...
Actually there are some that argue that we could stop the GW by exploding nukes.
Nuclear winter!
Since both Russia and the US have so many of them so why not. :)

There is only 1 reason we can't stop the Co2 cycles ...........MONEY , Greed

We are the only ones that can split the planet literally in 2
We are the only ones that can literally leave the planet
we are the only ones that are currently terraforming the Atmosphere

So that means we can also stop or reverse the current situation if the will is there to do so

If you think different then your selling Humans short so do your self in and leave those that are not selling us out to fix the problem
as your probably the one who has contributed to the mess the most as you would not be trying to do your bit to save us and reduce
you Co2 footprint

+1

Negativity will do nothing.
Naysayers will accomplish nothing

Disruptive technologies emerge from a global need.

Food waste is very unnecessary and agriculture is a major cause of the GW.
In just five years, Denmark has managed to reduce the national food waste by 25 percent - more than any other European country.
Not only food stores are following the trend. A new app, Too Good To Go, tell the Danes about the restaurants at the closing selling the food not been spent during the day, at greatly discounted prices. Hundreds of restaurants and cafes have started the same, and the app has spread to several countries, including Sweden.
http://toogoodtogo.se/
http://toogoodtogo.co.uk/
http://toogoodtogo.de/
Det er dejligt:)

1. Does CO2 in the air contribute to a greenhouse effect, thereby 'warming' the planet

yes it does

Does humanity, by causing emission of CO2 on a large scale, cause the concentration of CO2 in the air to increase

yes it does

Does agriculture cause the emission of a LOT of CO2 into the air

yes and no as a lot of it is actually Methane witch turns into Co2 after about 10 yrs

now using your figures

60% of co2 is not from Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Us
and 14% in your figures is not even there

I have a question for you

How much Co2 needs to be produced by nature to keep our planet warm and not go into another snow ball period ?

How many times has Earth turned into a snowball and why did it happen ?

To stop all Co2 is bad .

However sending the Co2 up as fast as we have is the problem so to stop all Co2 is the simpleton's answer again and shows how some are not thinking clearly but then the Co2 down under is lower than what you lot have to breath so I'm not surprised you are not understanding it .

One of the effects of a higher Co2 is stupidity :)

Glenn,

<sigh>...

It seems to me that you are far more interested in throwing the insults of 'stupid' and 'simpleton' around than you are in understanding the problem.

You raise a few good issues here, but I still do not have the impression that you understand the real problem, so here goes:

Does agriculture cause the emission of a LOT of CO2 into the air

yes and no as a lot of it is actually Methane witch turns into Co2 after about 10 yrs

Yes, you are correct in this one. A LOT of the agricultural emissions are Methane, but then (as you say) the Methane oxidizes into CO2 over a time period on the order of 10 years. Methane + Oxygen yields Carbon dioxide + water... CH4 + 2O2 ---> CO2 + 2H2O. So, when compared with the lifetime of CO2 in the carbon cycle (mean lifetime of 35,000 years) one may as well call the emissions of methane emissions of carbon dioxide.

now using your figures

60% of co2 is not from Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Us
and 14% in your figures is not even there

Now wait a minute, those are NOT my figures. I provided links to the source of those figures: the IPCC, assessment report 5, working group 3.

Referring to those IPCC figures, we see that only about half of our Greenhouse Gas emissions can be directly attributed to fossil fuel use (electricity/heat, other energy, and transportation). What of the OTHER half? That still leaves around 25 Gigatons of CO2-equivalent anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, per year, to deal with.

I have a question for you

How much Co2 needs to be produced by nature to keep our planet warm and not go into another snow ball period ?

How many times has Earth turned into a snowball and why did it happen ?

To stop all Co2 is bad .

There are a few... issues... with this statement/question.

To start, I will ask YOU a question...

Does humanity have the right to alter the natural climate cycles on this planet? Yes or no...

If your answer is 'no', then humanity MUST stop ALL Anthropogenic Greenhouse gas emissions (among other things). To not do so is to pervert the natural climate cycles.

If your answer is 'yes' (as is apparent from your post), then just WHY should we do anything at all?

Now, your reference to 'snow ball period'...

An ice age is a period of long-term reduction in the temperature of Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental and polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Within a long-term ice age, individual pulses of cold climate are termed "glacial periods" (or alternatively "glacials" or "glaciations" or colloquially as "ice age"), and intermittent warm periods are called "interglacials". In the terminology of glaciology, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in both northern and southern hemispheres. By this definition, we are in an interglacial period—the Holocene—of the ice age. The ice age began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, because the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice sheets still exist.

There have been at least five major ice ages in the earth's past (the Huronian, Cryogenian, Andean-Saharan, Karoo Ice Age and the Quaternary glaciation). Outside these ages, the Earth seems to have been ice-free even in high latitudes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

Now then 'snowball earth'... (pole to equator ice sheets... NOTHING but ice sheets) is extremely rare...

The next well-documented ice age, and probably the most severe of the last billion years, occurred from 850 to 630 million years ago (the Cryogenian period) and may have produced a Snowball Earth in which glacial ice sheets reached the equator, possibly being ended by the accumulation of greenhouse gases such as CO2 produced by volcanoes. "The presence of ice on the continents and pack ice on the oceans would inhibit both silicate weathering and photosynthesis, which are the two major sinks for CO2 at present."

Ok...

Age of the Earth: about 4.5 billion years (4500 million years).

There was an ice age during the Mesoarchean Eon from about 2.990 to 2.8 billion years ago (the Pongola ice age). (190 million years total).
Huronian ice age - 2.4 to 2.1 billion years ago (300 million years total).
Cyrogenian ice age - 850 to 630 million years ago (20 million years total -- the worst on record for glacial coverage of the planet).
Andean-Saharan ice age - 460 to 420 million years ago (30 million years total).
Karoo ice age - 360 to 260 million years ago (100 million years total).
The current (Pliocene-Quaternary) ice age - 2.58 million years ago to the present (its ongoing). (2.58+ million years).

So, we have ice ages for a total of about 642 million years, out of 4500 million years. And glaciations for only a fraction of that time. Ice ages for about 14% of the time (with glaciations for maybe about half of that). The rest of the time (86% of the time), the Earth has been ice-cap/pack ice/glacier free.

While ice ages/glaciations are rare, they are a NATURAL part of the planet's climate cycles. Do you really have the arrogant hubris to state that humanity should purposefully (as a matter of policy) alter the planet's natural climatic state? If you do, you DO realize that that puts you in the same camp with big oil and rest of the deniers?

CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have gotten to the point that they are slowing down the CO2 sinks the planet has, even reversing some of them (methane hydrates). You REALLY wanna keep going doing that?

CO2 has a LONG lifetime in the carbon cycle before it is (semi)permanently removed from the carbon cycle (by the weathering of various rocks on the ocean floor, etc.). Mean lifetime is 35,000 years before that happens, and it is an exponential decay with a VERY long tail (about 7% still left after about 100,000 years).

The MORE CO2 that gets emitted, not only will it take LONGER to get dealt with but the rate at which it is dealt with slows down (warmer water can dissolve less CO2).

(semi)permenant removal:

Step 1(the most rapid step): CO2 dissolves in water, producing some Carbonic acid with some of the dissolved CO2.
Step 2(the MUCH slower step):
Part a: The carbonic acid causes some of the oxides in rocks to chemically change to carbonates. Example: CaO + CO2 -> CaCO3 (leaving out the water). Calcium oxide + Carbon dioxide -> Calcium Carbonate.
Part b: The carbonic acid causes some of the carbonates to chemically change to bicarbonates. Example:
Mg2SiO4 + 4 CO2 + 4 H2O ⇌ 2 Mg2+ + 4 HCO3− + H4SiO4
olivine (forsterite) + carbon dioxide + water ⇌ Magnesium and bicarbonate ions in solution + silicic acid in solution


Temporary removal: photosynthesis. This is a temporary removal of CO2, since vegatation and organic material will eventually (over the short term) either rot or be eaten, opening up the carbon for eventual release back into the atmosphere as CO2.

Note: AFOLU (Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use change) both accelerates the reversion of the Carbon back into CO2 and reduces the size of the natural CO2 temporary sink. With enough AFOLU, the uptake of CO2 into this temporary sink can be overcome by the release of CO2 due to AFOLU activity.


Now then, capacity of the planet to deal with 'natural' CO2 release:

Concentrating on the (semi)permenant process of rock weathering, and ignoring ANY contribution from the temporary sink of photosynthesis, the planet can deal with about 5 Gigatons of anthropogenic CO2 emissions in step 1, per year (per Dr. Archer, I HAVE linked his papers on the subject here multiple times).

That is 5 Gigatons per year at the THEN current planetary temperature and CO2 concentrations from about 10 years ago when he wrote the papers on the subject. Note: the warmer the planet gets, the lower this figure will be because CO2 solubility in water decreases as temperature increases.

Step 2 rates are a LOT less, maybe only about 5 to 15 Megatons of anthropogenic CO2, per year.

Ok, the ocean can absorb about 30% of the CO2 emissions, per year, on average. Anthropogenic emissions are about 49 Gigatons, per year, according to the IPCC. 30% of 49Gt is 14.7 Gigatons of CO2 per year. The ocean can deal with about 0.1% of that (through deep ocean sediment and weathering), per year. 14.7 Gt CO2 * 0.1% is 14.7 Megatons CO2 per year.

Just for for your information, the latest figure I have seen for the average natural, volcanic CO2 emissions per year is 300 Megatons

Please stop referring to things you don't understand correctly and people who you disagree with as 'simple' or 'stupid'. I welcome a discussion with you, but it is rather irritating when you are so... abrasive about it. We know you don't approve of many actions of the USA and thoughts / attitudes of the US citizens. I understand. I also have my gripes along those lines. But, when discussing something of this importance, could you please tone your rhetoric down a bit... please.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

MOAR - BOOM...

1. Does CO2 in the air contribute to a greenhouse effect, thereby 'warming' the planet

yes it does

Does humanity, by causing emission of CO2 on a large scale, cause the concentration of CO2 in the air to increase

yes it does

Does agriculture cause the emission of a LOT of CO2 into the air

yes and no as a lot of it is actually Methane witch turns into Co2 after about 10 yrs

now using your figures

60% of co2 is not from Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Us
and 14% in your figures is not even there

I have a question for you

How much Co2 needs to be produced by nature to keep our planet warm and not go into another snow ball period ?

How many times has Earth turned into a snowball and why did it happen ?

To stop all Co2 is bad .

However sending the Co2 up as fast as we have is the problem so to stop all Co2 is the simpleton's answer again and shows how some are not thinking clearly but then the Co2 down under is lower than what you lot have to breath so I'm not surprised you are not understanding it .

One of the effects of a higher Co2 is stupidity :)

Glenn,

<sigh>...

It seems to me that you are far more interested in throwing the insults of 'stupid' and 'simpleton' around than you are in understanding the problem.

You raise a few good issues here, but I still do not have the impression that you understand the real problem, so here goes:

Does agriculture cause the emission of a LOT of CO2 into the air

yes and no as a lot of it is actually Methane witch turns into Co2 after about 10 yrs

Yes, you are correct in this one. A LOT of the agricultural emissions are Methane, but then (as you say) the Methane oxidizes into CO2 over a time period on the order of 10 years. Methane + Oxygen yields Carbon dioxide + water... CH4 + 2O2 ---> CO2 + 2H2O. So, when compared with the lifetime of CO2 in the carbon cycle (mean lifetime of 35,000 years) one may as well call the emissions of methane emissions of carbon dioxide.

now using your figures

60% of co2 is not from Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Us
and 14% in your figures is not even there

Now wait a minute, those are NOT my figures. I provided links to the source of those figures: the IPCC, assessment report 5, working group 3.

Referring to those IPCC figures, we see that only about half of our Greenhouse Gas emissions can be directly attributed to fossil fuel use (electricity/heat, other energy, and transportation). What of the OTHER half? That still leaves around 25 Gigatons of CO2-equivalent anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, per year, to deal with.

I have a question for you

How much Co2 needs to be produced by nature to keep our planet warm and not go into another snow ball period ?

How many times has Earth turned into a snowball and why did it happen ?

To stop all Co2 is bad .

There are a few... issues... with this statement/question.

To start, I will ask YOU a question...

Does humanity have the right to alter the natural climate cycles on this planet? Yes or no...

If your answer is 'no', then humanity MUST stop ALL Anthropogenic Greenhouse gas emissions (among other things). To not do so is to pervert the natural climate cycles.

If your answer is 'yes' (as is apparent from your post), then just WHY should we do anything at all?

Now, your reference to 'snow ball period'...

An ice age is a period of long-term reduction in the temperature of Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental and polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Within a long-term ice age, individual pulses of cold climate are termed "glacial periods" (or alternatively "glacials" or "glaciations" or colloquially as "ice age"), and intermittent warm periods are called "interglacials". In the terminology of glaciology, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in both northern and southern hemispheres. By this definition, we are in an interglacial period—the Holocene—of the ice age. The ice age began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, because the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice sheets still exist.

There have been at least five major ice ages in the earth's past (the Huronian, Cryogenian, Andean-Saharan, Karoo Ice Age and the Quaternary glaciation). Outside these ages, the Earth seems to have been ice-free even in high latitudes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

Now then 'snowball earth'... (pole to equator ice sheets... NOTHING but ice sheets) is extremely rare...

The next well-documented ice age, and probably the most severe of the last billion years, occurred from 850 to 630 million years ago (the Cryogenian period) and may have produced a Snowball Earth in which glacial ice sheets reached the equator, possibly being ended by the accumulation of greenhouse gases such as CO2 produced by volcanoes. "The presence of ice on the continents and pack ice on the oceans would inhibit both silicate weathering and photosynthesis, which are the two major sinks for CO2 at present."

Ok...

Age of the Earth: about 4.5 billion years (4500 million years).

There was an ice age during the Mesoarchean Eon from about 2.990 to 2.8 billion years ago (the Pongola ice age). (190 million years total).
Huronian ice age - 2.4 to 2.1 billion years ago (300 million years total).
Cyrogenian ice age - 850 to 630 million years ago (20 million years total -- the worst on record for glacial coverage of the planet).
Andean-Saharan ice age - 460 to 420 million years ago (30 million years total).
Karoo ice age - 360 to 260 million years ago (100 million years total).
The current (Pliocene-Quaternary) ice age - 2.58 million years ago to the present (its ongoing). (2.58+ million years).

So, we have ice ages for a total of about 642 million years, out of 4500 million years. And glaciations for only a fraction of that time. Ice ages for about 14% of the time (with glaciations for maybe about half of that). The rest of the time (86% of the time), the Earth has been ice-cap/pack ice/glacier free.

While ice ages/glaciations are rare, they are a NATURAL part of the planet's climate cycles. Do you really have the arrogant hubris to state that humanity should purposefully (as a matter of policy) alter the planet's natural climatic state? If you do, you DO realize that that puts you in the same camp with big oil and rest of the deniers?

CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have gotten to the point that they are slowing down the CO2 sinks the planet has, even reversing some of them (methane hydrates). You REALLY wanna keep going doing that?

CO2 has a LONG lifetime in the carbon cycle before it is (semi)permanently removed from the carbon cycle (by the weathering of various rocks on the ocean floor, etc.). Mean lifetime is 35,000 years before that happens, and it is an exponential decay with a VERY long tail (about 7% still left after about 100,000 years).

The MORE CO2 that gets emitted, not only will it take LONGER to get dealt with but the rate at which it is dealt with slows down (warmer water can dissolve less CO2).

(semi)permenant removal:

Step 1(the most rapid step): CO2 dissolves in water, producing some Carbonic acid with some of the dissolved CO2.
Step 2(the MUCH slower step):
Part a: The carbonic acid causes some of the oxides in rocks to chemically change to carbonates. Example: CaO + CO2 -> CaCO3 (leaving out the water). Calcium oxide + Carbon dioxide -> Calcium Carbonate.
Part b: The carbonic acid causes some of the carbonates to chemically change to bicarbonates. Example:
Mg2SiO4 + 4 CO2 + 4 H2O ⇌ 2 Mg2+ + 4 HCO3− + H4SiO4
olivine (forsterite) + carbon dioxide + water ⇌ Magnesium and bicarbonate ions in solution + silicic acid in solution


Temporary removal: photosynthesis. This is a temporary removal of CO2, since vegatation and organic material will eventually (over the short term) either rot or be eaten, opening up the carbon for eventual release back into the atmosphere as CO2.

Note: AFOLU (Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use change) both accelerates the reversion of the Carbon back into CO2 and reduces the size of the natural CO2 temporary sink. With enough AFOLU, the uptake of CO2 into this temporary sink can be overcome by the release of CO2 due to AFOLU activity.


Now then, capacity of the planet to deal with 'natural' CO2 release:

Concentrating on the (semi)permenant process of rock weathering, and ignoring ANY contribution from the temporary sink of photosynthesis, the planet can deal with about 5 Gigatons of anthropogenic CO2 emissions in step 1, per year (per Dr. Archer, I HAVE linked his papers on the subject here multiple times).

That is 5 Gigatons per year at the THEN current planetary temperature and CO2 concentrations from about 10 years ago when he wrote the papers on the subject. Note: the warmer the planet gets, the lower this figure will be because CO2 solubility in water decreases as temperature increases.

Step 2 rates are a LOT less, maybe only about 5 to 15 Megatons of anthropogenic CO2, per year.

Ok, the ocean can absorb about 30% of the CO2 emissions, per year, on average. Anthropogenic emissions are about 49 Gigatons, per year, according to the IPCC. 30% of 49Gt is 14.7 Gigatons of CO2 per year. The ocean can deal with about 0.1% of that (through deep ocean sediment and weathering), per year. 14.7 Gt CO2 * 0.1% is 14.7 Megatons CO2 per year.

Just for for your information, the latest figure I have seen for the average natural, volcanic CO2 emissions per year is 300 Megatons

Please stop referring to things you don't understand correctly and people who you disagree with as 'simple' or 'stupid'. I welcome a discussion with you, but it is rather irritating when you are so... abrasive about it. We know you don't approve of many actions of the USA and thoughts / attitudes of the US citizens. I understand. I also have my gripes along those lines. But, when discussing something of this importance, could you please tone your rhetoric down a bit... please.

TY MK

..

---

...

Does humanity have the right to alter the natural climate cycles on this planet? Yes or no...

Yes we do

If your answer is 'yes' (as is apparent from your post), then just WHY should we do anything at all?

Umm I don't understand the last part but anyway

My answer is yes we do . Why we are the only ones that can interfere with it and stabilize it .

Are you saying we shouldn't ? We are the only ones that can and therefore it is up to us as custodians of this planet to do something about it if we still wish to live here .

What we don't have a right to do is kill every other animal on this planet because we are irresponsible .

Now, your reference to 'snow ball period'

There has been at least 3 snow ball periods not just the one you have mentioned

Snowball Earth in which glacial ice sheets reached the equator, possibly being ended by the accumulation of greenhouse gases such as CO2 produced by volcanoes

this is correct

Also when there has been no ice at the poles the Co2 was many times higher than now and why most animals
of that time where not very smart and had small brains because the Co2 was to high .

Seeing as I got you to look up some facts about snow ball Earth I should now ask you to look at why insects where as big as cars and why were they that big ?
Also have there been or is there way to test the hypothesis of why insects grew that big ?

Once you have those answers you will see that we already know what will happen if the Co2 is allowed to get to high so we have no choice but to either return to being hunter gatherers and leave
our fate to God or natural processes witch is the dumbest thing to do or use our brains and solve the problem and stop being simpletons making excuses as to why we can't fix it

Reducing the population is in itself and big problem if we wish to leave the planet . Where are all the people to populate the other worlds going to come from in the first place unless your talking something alone the lines of 1989 Orson wells

I state again the only reason we can't fix it is MONEY, GREED both are mans ideas and are only a accounting system . Money payed to you is your receipt that you played your part in society and the other is just selfishness

The fact we know the processes witch you clearly show we do means we can't ignore the problem that we have made . I can only deduce that your saying stuff it we can fix it so let's not try.

In other words we should do what a ostrich or emu can't remember what one does it but bury our head in the sand and hope it will just go away

---

Receding glacier causes immense Canadian river to vanish in four days

An immense river that flowed from one of Canada’s largest glaciers vanished over the course of four days last year, scientists have reported, in an unsettling illustration of how global warming dramatically changes the world’s geography.
The abrupt and unexpected disappearance of the Slims river, which spanned up to 150 metres at its widest points, is the first observed case of “river piracy”, in which the flow of one river is suddenly diverted into another.
For hundreds of years, the Slims carried meltwater northwards from the vast Kaskawulsh glacier in Canada’s Yukon territory into the Kluane river, then into the Yukon river towards the Bering Sea. But in spring 2016, a period of intense melting of the glacier meant the drainage gradient was tipped in favour of a second river, redirecting the meltwater to the Gulf of Alaska, thousands of miles from its original destination.

---

Does humanity have the right to alter the natural climate cycles on this planet? Yes or no...

Yes we do

If your answer is 'yes' (as is apparent from your post), then just WHY should we do anything at all?

Umm I don't understand the last part but anyway

My answer is yes we do . Why we are the only ones that can interfere with it and stabilize it .

Are you saying we shouldn't ? We are the only ones that can and therefore it is up to us as custodians of this planet to do something about it if we still wish to live here .

What we don't have a right to do is kill every other animal on this planet because we are irresponsible .

Now, your reference to 'snow ball period'

There has been at least 3 snow ball periods not just the one you have mentioned

Snowball Earth in which glacial ice sheets reached the equator, possibly being ended by the accumulation of greenhouse gases such as CO2 produced by volcanoes

this is correct

Also when there has been no ice at the poles the Co2 was many times higher than now and why most animals
of that time where not very smart and had small brains because the Co2 was to high .

Seeing as I got you to look up some facts about snow ball Earth I should now ask you to look at why insects where as big as cars and why were they that big ?
Also have there been or is there way to test the hypothesis of why insects grew that big ?

Once you have those answers you will see that we already know what will happen if the Co2 is allowed to get to high so we have no choice but to either return to being hunter gatherers and leave
our fate to God or natural processes witch is the dumbest thing to do or use our brains and solve the problem and stop being simpletons making excuses as to why we can't fix it

Reducing the population is in itself and big problem if we wish to leave the planet . Where are all the people to populate the other worlds going to come from in the first place unless your talking something alone the lines of 1989 Orson wells

I state again the only reason we can't fix it is MONEY, GREED both are mans ideas and are only a accounting system . Money payed to you is your receipt that you played your part in society and the other is just selfishness

The fact we know the processes witch you clearly show we do means we can't ignore the problem that we have made . I can only deduce that your saying stuff it we can fix it so let's not try.

In other words we should do what a ostrich or emu can't remember what one does it but bury our head in the sand and hope it will just go away

Glenn,

Also when there has been no ice at the poles the Co2 was many times higher than now and why most animals
of that time where not very smart and had small brains because the Co2 was to high .

Huh???

I think you are mistaken about that one.

"During the Middle Miocene (the time period approximately 14 to 20 million years ago), carbon dioxide levels were sustained at about 400 parts per million, which is about where we are today," Tripati said. "Globally, temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer, a huge amount."

Tripati's new chemical technique has an average uncertainty rate of only 14 parts per million.

"We can now have confidence in making statements about how carbon dioxide has varied throughout history," Tripati said.

In the last 20 million years, key features of the climate record include the sudden appearance of ice on Antarctica about 14 million years ago and a rise in sea level of approximately 75 to 120 feet.

"We have shown that this dramatic rise in sea level is associated with an increase in carbon dioxide levels of about 100 parts per million, a huge change," Tripati said. "This record is the first evidence that carbon dioxide may be linked with environmental changes, such as changes in the terrestrial ecosystem, distribution of ice, sea level and monsoon intensity."

Today, the Arctic Ocean is covered with frozen ice all year long, an ice cap that has been there for about 14 million years.

"Prior to that, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic," Tripati said.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/last-time-carbon-dioxide-levels-111074

No Antarctic ice sheet or permanent ice cap in the Arctic from 20 million years ago until 14 million years ago. CO2 levels then were about 400 ppm... TODAY'S levels.

Seeing as I got you to look up some facts about snow ball Earth I should now ask you to look at why insects where as big as cars and why were they that big ?
Also have there been or is there way to test the hypothesis of why insects grew that big ?

Simple: A much larger % of oxygen in the air.

Fossils show that giant dragonflies and huge cockroaches were common during the Carboniferous period, which lasted from about 359 to 299 million years ago. (Explore a prehistoric time line.)

During this time, the rise of vast lowland swamp forests led to atmospheric oxygen levels of around 30 percent—close to 50 percent higher than current levels.

According to previous theories about insect gigantism, this rich oxygen environment allowed adult bugs to grow to ever larger sizes while still meeting their energy needs. (Related: "Did Rising Oxygen Levels Fuel Mammal Evolution?")

For the new study, Verberk and colleague David Bilton instead focused on how varying oxygen levels affect stonefly larvae, which, like dragonflies, live in water before becoming terrestrial adults. Higher concentrations of oxygen in air would have meant higher concentrations dissolved in water.

The results showed that juvenile stoneflies are more sensitive to oxygen fluctuations than their adult counterparts living on land.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/08/110808-ancient-insects-bugs-giants-oxygen-animals-science/

Once you have those answers you will see that we already know what will happen if the Co2 is allowed to get to high so we have no choice but to either return to being hunter gatherers

We are there NOW.

Reducing the population is in itself and big problem if we wish to leave the planet . Where are all the people to populate the other worlds going to come from in the first place unless your talking something alone the lines of 1989 Orson wells

Well, the bulk of them will not come from Earth's then-current human population. It is way too expensive (in terms of resources, not in terms of $$$) to send that many humans... elsewhere.

Off-world colonization is about the survival of the species, not about the survival of the individual. The likely minimum viable human population is on the order of 10,000. One out of about 700,000 people alive on Earth today.

Glenn, even assuming as close of a location as a station in Earth orbit (at least initially), the necessary resources get to be prohibitive very quickly.

Ok, our highest crew capacity space launch system was the US Space Shuttle (now retired). Crew of 7. That is 1429 launches for just the people. More than that because SOME of the crew will need to fly it back down so it can be readied for its next trip. So, about 2000 launches. Add to that two or three times that many to haul the construction materials and supplies (food, water, air, etc.) on up and... well, you are beginning to get the idea. 8 to 10 thousand launches. Just about 1 launch per person. Now then, there are well over 7 BILLION of us today (the number keeps on growing). Isn't 7+ billion launches just a TAD unrealistic??

use our brains and solve the problem

Ok, Glenn, you want to do this. Fine. First thing, we need to reduce CO2 emissions to a point below what the Earth can deal with. Ignoring, for the moment all the little pesky facts about just Agriculture (that we need to just FEED the 7+ billion of us being too much, let us go with the method that most all of the Warmists advocate... Stopping Fossil Fuel use (it needs to happen anyway, but IMO it will not be enough).

What will we replace the fossil fuel electricity plants with?

Nuclear? Doubtful, since the NIMBY (not in my back yard) effect is quite strong.

Wind turbines? Really? Remember this news story?
http://www.news.com.au/travel/world-travel/asia/baotou-is-the-worlds-biggest-supplier-of-rare-earth-minerals-and-its-hell-on-earth/news-story/371376b9893492cfc77d23744ca12bc5

Ok, then, Solar panels... Oh, wait...
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39347620

Ok, fossil fuel pumps out quite a large amount of CO2 into the air every year (> 10 Gigatons).

Wind turbines are all well and good, but they turn the areas where the rare-earth metals are mined to produce the magnets into... well... HELL.

Solar panels are all well and good, but they are not exactly clean to produce. You really wanna mine (and destroy) the ocean floor to make them? (BTW, the ocean bottom is the PRIMARY site for removal of carbon from the carbon cycle... you wanna fark that up??)

What is left???

One way or the other, humanity's LARGE population is going to require quite a large amount of environmental destruction to support it. TANSTAAFL.

Then we are going to have to start scrubbing the CO2 out of the air. This is going to require a LOT of power and resources. Remember, only about 10% of the emitted Carbon is stil in the air. The other 90% of it is either temporarily locked up in the photosynthetic carbon sink or dissolved in the oceans (about 20% in the temporary carbon sink, and 70% in the ocean). We need to start removing it from the air faster than we emit it, at LEAST twice as much per year as we emit. That way, we will allow the CO2 in the air to stay relatively in equilibrium with the CO2 elsewhere in the cycle. We will have to maintain this for a very long time.

We will likely have to between double and triple the size of the current power grid, and devote ALL of this power to the CO2 scrubbing. Then add another 1x to the grid size to cover power needs for everything else. All of this is going to take a LOT of resources... Resources that we are rapidly running low on due to the size of our population. And ALL of this is just a maybe.

Both of these MAJOR projects (the space colonization, and the CO2 scrubbing) are going to take, at a minimum, an amount of resources roughly equivalent to our current level of resource usage. I don't know where all of that is going to come from, especially considering that we are already over the sustainability budget the way things are now. If EVERYONE on Earth now started living at the standard of living of the poorest nations on Earth, we are STILL over the population sustainability limit by about 0.4 billion people.

You beginning to understand?

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

I understand Kong but your selling us all short . There was a story on the news only the other day about , get this ! Farming algae to make Omega 3 and one of the offshoots is the algae eats Co2 in fact all the energy that will be needed to aerate the water ponds for the algae to grow and is given off from the gas electric generators used can be pumped back into the water and is in fact is Co2 negative. Meaning it's absorbing more Co2 than is needed in energy . They hope to be able to produce 5 million dollars worth of Omega 3 and will be a very large farm . They dry the algae out and I can see that if you were to use this type of Carbon Capture you can very easily bury the dried produce and lock up the carbon for a long time not that you would have to if it's Co2 negative.

As with space travel and exploring the universe , maybe not right now can we go to other places , but the pace of change and science breakthroughs mean we may well be on another planet in the next 50-100 years and again your selling Humans short . In order for the colony's to be able to populate other world and not needing people from Earth well first you have to put people on these places and I doubt it will be only a few hundred or thousand I would say it will be a continuous stream of people leaving our world to start there own great adventure

The biggest thing that is stopping us from fixing things is the belief that Capitalism alone can fix everything even thou there is no formula for greed and therefore ways to stop it . Society must stop pitting socialism , communism against Capitalism there is room for some socialist policy's to actually work with Capitalism .
When you think only one type of dogma is the be all and end all , that's when you get problems that you can't fix due to the closed minds that occur when you only have one system

I fear you country will never see this and end up with your worst nightmare with a system like 1989 Orson Wells book

---

I understand Kong but your selling us all short . There was a story on the news only the other day about , get this ! Farming algae to make Omega 3 and one of the offshoots is the algae eats Co2 in fact all the energy that will be needed to aerate the water ponds for the algae to grow and is given off from the gas electric generators used can be pumped back into the water and is in fact is Co2 negative. Meaning it's absorbing more Co2 than is needed in energy . They hope to be able to produce 5 million dollars worth of Omega 3 and will be a very large farm . They dry the algae out and I can see that if you were to use this type of Carbon Capture you can very easily bury the dried produce and lock up the carbon for a long time not that you would have to if it's Co2 negative.

As soon as it is "buried" it gets wet. As soon as it is wet bacteria eat it. As soon as bacteria eat it the CO2 is released. Learn your basic carbon cycle! You can't lock up CO2 in plant matter. Now coral or clams, yes, those shells of calcium carbonate won't release the CO2 back into the environment. At least not until they come back out a volcano.

---

Now coral or clams, yes, those shells of calcium carbonate won't release the CO2 back into the environment. At least not until they come back out a volcano.

Or ocean acidity.

---

As soon as it is "buried" it gets wet. As soon as it is wet bacteria eat it. As soon as bacteria eat it the CO2 is released. Learn your basic carbon cycle! You can't lock up CO2 in plant matter. Now coral or clams, yes, those shells of calcium carbonate won't release the CO2 back into the environment. At least not until they come back out a volcano.

I understand plastic bags last 300 years before they breakdown and then there is other ways you could bury it . So I think a 300 year buffer should be enough to solve the problems we can't yet

Your answer is once again not very smart . There is no waste product from the farming of algae every part can be turned into something we use .

---

As soon as it is "buried" it gets wet. As soon as it is wet bacteria eat it. As soon as bacteria eat it the CO2 is released. Learn your basic carbon cycle! You can't lock up CO2 in plant matter. Now coral or clams, yes, those shells of calcium carbonate won't release the CO2 back into the environment. At least not until they come back out a volcano.

I understand plastic bags last 300 years before they breakdown and then there is other ways you could bury it . So I think a 300 year buffer should be enough to solve the problems we can't yet

Your answer is once again not very smart . There is no waste product from the farming of algae every part can be turned into something we use .

I still don't think you understand the scale of the problem. In 2014, we emitted about 10.6 Gigatons of Carbon (38.9 Gigatons of CO2). You have any idea how much carbon that is?

10.6 gigatons is

10,600,000,000 tons or

10,600,000,000,000 kilograms or

10,600,000,000,000,000 grams of carbon.

1.06 * 10^16 grams of carbon.

The density of diamond is 3.51 grams per cm^3.


If all the carbon emitted was converted into diamond (pure crystalline carbon)...

That is about 3.02 * 10^15 cm^3 of diamond. or

3.02 * 10^9 m^3 of diamond, or

A big cube of diamond, 1.45 km per side.

A cube of diamond almost 1.5 km on each side.... per YEAR...

A cube of pure, crystalline carbon, 1.5 km on each side, EVERY YEAR (and that is at current (2014) emission levels).

Where are you going to put that much... stuff?

Note, if you DON'T convert it to diamond, but something else such as calcium carbonate, or worse, dried plant matter, the size of the pile is going to get larger.

As Gary has said in his response, plant matter will rot, eventually.

As Betreger has said in his response, calcium carbonate will emit CO2 if it gets wet (acids in the water).

Regardless, where are you going to put that much stuff, every year? And it better be in a permanent form...

Sorry, but I fail to see what economic systems have to do with it.... Socialism, capitalism... wtf??

Natural law (physics, chemistry, biology) does NOT change, even if you go communist.

Sorry, Glenn, but what you are advocating is nothing but 'kicking the can on down the road' so that future generations will have to deal with it (by which time, it will be much much worse).


I submit to you that the only SANE thing to do is to zero out ALL anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and let the planet handle it via natural processes. And remember, fossil fuel use is only about half the problem.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

I submit to you that the only SANE thing to do is to zero out ALL anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and let the planet handle it via natural processes.

" ALL anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions"?
Hmm... Should we stop eat as well?

Fossil fuels causes three quarters of the total greenhouse gas emissions.
A quarter of the emissions are caused by deforestation, agriculture and animal farming.

The only "sane" solution is to focus on fossil fuel and reduce the emissions as best we can.
Then of course look how we are managing food.
Perhaps that will give us headroom to figure out new technologies until it's too late.

Doing nothing is not SANE!

Jann I agree.

---

Kong I think your not understanding it .

Most advanced economy's have negative population growth and in fact need immigration to just keep the population at the current level
This occurs because of the fact as people get richer they make life choices other than having kids so we don't need to reduce the population just making people live
with dignity will reduce the population

Stop using all fossil fuels and we go from only having approx. 50-60 years to having 150 years now add some really big algae farms to start soaking up carbon , place it in thick plastic bags or some thing that won't rot or leak for 100-200 years and we go from 150 to 300 plus years

Now to say we can't solve the problems in 300 years is just a joke .

Where can we put all this carbon ummmmm you got any idea how big the open cut mines are here give you a clue you can see the holes they make from satellite photos and you don't have to zoom in to a local level to see them so plenty of room to bury them as we can all ways fill in some of the extremely large holes in the Australian outback believe me they are not just big holes but massive canons and very deep.

We must stop using fossil fuels now we can't waste anymore of the carbon sink with same old thing we have been doing . We have 50-60 years currently so while there is some time say 10 of those years we can save our self's
Lose 10 years now gain 290 at the end of 10 years conversion . Now if someone had the brass .... to actually commit we can still fix it wait another 20 years and then try and convert and it may well be to late we are running out of time

---

Most advanced economy's have negative population growth and in fact need immigration to just keep the population at the current level

That's very true.
Russia and the Baltic States, and Sweden:), are very good examples.
And if you look at the continents.
Both North and South America has no population growth any longer.
That goes for Europe and Australia as well.

Now to say we can't solve the problems in 300 years is just a joke .

And we managed to create this mess in less than 300 years so why should it be impossible to reverse the GW by reducing CO2 emmisions in the next 300 years?
Makes no sense.

And we managed to create this mess in less than 300 years so why should it be impossible to reverse the GW by reducing CO2 emmisions in the next 300 years?
Makes no sense.

The mess started a lot longer ago than 300 years. Try the day man learned to control fire.

---

And we managed to create this mess in less than 300 years so why should it be impossible to reverse the GW by reducing CO2 emmisions in the next 300 years?
Makes no sense.

The mess started a lot longer ago than 300 years. Try the day man learned to control fire.

I don't think we even have to go back more than 200 years ago.

The mess started a lot longer ago than 300 years. Try the day man learned to control fire.

+1

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.