[tomder55]

Antarctica once had a tropical rain forest .

Fossilised Remains of 90-million-year-old Rainforest Found Under Antarctic Ice (thevintagenews.com)

This is also true of the North Pole

Study: North Pole Once Was Tropical - CBS News

I guess they got those dinosaurs to stop driving SUVs .

[Wondergirl]

NOW is global warming/climate change, partly because of the human activities on this planet.

[tomder55]

possibly; that is one unproven hypothesis . I have my own unproven hypothesis .It says that the real state of the world is warm ;that we are still retreating from the last ice age that began about 20,000 years ago . The current warming began around 11,000 years ago . There have been at least 5 major ice ages in the globe's history ;and countless lesser ones.

[paraclete]

and the world recovered from these ice ages without human intervention

[talaniman]

Will the worlds humans recover from fouling the land air and water too? Humans could at least clean up after themselves.

[tomder55]

there you go again . The issues are not related . The issue related to alleged anthropogenic climate change have nothing to do with other pollutants . Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant despite what SCOTUS says . And there is certainly no evidence that other pollutants "fouling the air and water " have any relationship to climate change .
We can certainly address those issues and in many cases have done so .

[jlisenbe]

For what it's worth, most western nations have been reducing CO2 output since 2000. This chart is a great illustration of why the Paris Accords were one of Obama's most ridiculous "accomplishments".

[Athos]

The issue related to alleged anthropogenic climate change have nothing to do with other pollutants . Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant despite what SCOTUS says

Here's some reading for you scientists out there.

We know that the increase in atmospheric CO₂ is anthropogenic from a number of lines of evidence. Atmospheric oxygen is decreasing at approximately the same rate as the atmospheric CO₂ increase, which tells us that the source of the change is from a release of carbon combining with atmospheric oxygen rather than a natural release of CO₂.

Thus we know that human emissions are increasing the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere, which as a greenhouse gas, in turn increases the greenhouse effect. This increases the amount of energy (in the form of longwave infrared radiation) reaching the Earth's surface. We've observed this increase through spectroscopy, which measures changes in the electromagnetic spectrum. Climate scientists have also quantified the amount of warming we expect to see from the energy imbalance caused by this increased downward radiation, and it matches well with observations. Given the amount of CO₂ humans have added to the atmosphere already, once the planet reaches a new equilibrium state, it will have warmed approximately 1.4°C from pre-industrial levels. Additionally, we have observed numerous key 'fingerprints' of anthropogenic global warming which confirm that the warming we've experienced is due to an increased greenhouse effect.

There are some positive effects of global warming from increased CO₂ emissions. For example, improved agriculture at high latitudes and increased vegetation growth in some circumstances. However, the negatives will far outweigh the positives. Coast-bound communities are threatened by rising sea levels. Melting glaciers threaten the water supplies of hundreds of millions. Species are already becoming extinct at a rate 100 to 1000 times higher than the “background” rate of long spans of geological time, partially due to the effects of global warming and climate change.

Another impact of increasing atmospheric CO₂ emissions is ocean acidification. Among other impacts, this decreasing oceanic pH has a damaging effect on corals, which form the habitat of approximately 25% of marine species (Karleskint et al. 2009). A seminal study co-authored by 17 marine scientists (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2007) found:

"Many experimental studies have shown that a doubling of pre-industrial [CO2] atm to 560 ppm decreases coral calcification and growth by up to 40% through the inhibition of aragonite formation (the principal crystalline form of calcium carbonate deposited in coral skeletons) as carbonate-ion concentrations decrease"

Thus not only does anthropogenic CO₂ act as a dangerous pollutant due to its impacts on global warming and climate change, but it also has a major effect on marine ecosystems through ocean acidification.

When considering the legal definition of "air pollutants" and body of scientific evidence, it becomes clear that CO₂ meets the definition and poses a significant threat to public health and welfare.

Here's the data for the scientifically inclined:

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=281

[jlisenbe]

I don't know of anyone who questions that atmospheric CO2 has increased, though it is still measured in parts per million and has never been a significant atmospheric component. I also don't know of anyone who seriously questions that global temps have risen marginally, though not nearly as much as the now discredited computer models predicted. The big question centers around what to do about it. The liberal dem idea of a Green New Deal is lunacy right out of the gate if, for no other reason, its prohibitive cost and the fact that it only effects CO2 emissions in the U.S., so we are still waiting on someone to come up with a logical solution. We like to throw accusations around in our country, but we still await any practical ideas of what to do about it. Wind and solar can help a little, but they are not large-scale solutions due to being unreliable. Replacing coal with natural gas helps. Energy efficient cars, buildings, etc. help some as well, but that does nothing to slow down the rest of the world. So a truly global solution is, at present, nowhere to be found, and it might well turn out that simply learning to adapt is going to be the answer. A real key is to not allow liberal dems like AOC, Sanders, Harris Biden, and others to destroy our economy in their foolish and unscientific efforts to use Monopoly money to fix a problem that is still not well understood.

[talaniman]

Naturally occurring CO2 is a part of the cycle of life in the global ecosystem, but mans emissions does change that natural equation and has profound effects on that cycle of life which appears to accelerate not just the rate of climate change, but the intensity of it. To say that a few million cars or oil refineries, or coal burning power plants have no effect on air land or water is insane, or that our mitigation strategies are as adequate as they need to be is down right crazy. I'm not surprised though that you and many others just see this as a matter of money, as mitigation is expensive and old habits die hard, and why would you care if until YOUR water supply or air you breath may not be as polluted as another locale or region.

Basically what Athos so very well posted and there is plenty of evidence to point in that direction.

[paraclete]

That graph is a lie and self serving since it doesnt show the volumes of emissions the rest of the world increaces 1.4% from a low base? And is towering over others

[jlisenbe]

The point of posting the graph was to show that the West had lowered CO2 emissions while the rest of the world has generally increased. But if it makes you feel better, here is a chart showing emissions by countries. You will note that your emissions have climbed steadily while the United States has shown a significant decrease in the past decade. In fact we are scarcely above where we were in 1990. Your per capita emissions are also above ours. Just sayin. If the rest of the world was following the example of the U.S. and Western Europe, CO2 emissions would be down substantially.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...xide_emissions

[jlisenbe]

And here's the chart done a little differently. It certainly does appear that the relative amounts shown in the first one were accurate.

[paraclete]

The graph is deceiving because it suggests that the rest of the world must make the reduction effort when it is the developed countries that have massive emissions and must continue to make large reductions

[jlisenbe]

I didn't see that the graph was trying to suggest anything, but it does show very clearly that the West is leading the way in reducing carbon emissions and that China is far and away the leading "culprit", if that is the correct term to use. If China and the "rest of the world" do not reverse their explosive growth, then it won't much matter what we do.

[paraclete]

I didn't see that the graph was trying to suggest anything, but it does show very clearly that the West is leading the way in reducing carbon emissions and that China is far and away the leading "culprit", if that is the correct term to use. If China and the "rest of the world" do not reverse their explosive growth, then it won't much matter what we do.

china is only a culprit because the west transferred much of the manufacturing there just another lie of capitalists to deflect blame things will move from china to india and then india will be the culprit. Its insane

[jlisenbe]

china is only a culprit because the west transferred much of the manufacturing there just another lie of capitalists to deflect blame things will move from china to india and then india will be the culprit. Its insane

The decrease of carbon emissions in the U.S. has little to do with manufacturing. It is largely due to a greatly increased use of natural gas as opposed to coal and increased usage of renewable energy sources. That combined with more efficient usage accounts for most of it.

China's manufacturing surge accounts for some of their problems, but their increases in personal earnings, and the increased use of energy that brings on, is a large contributor.

Thank goodness for capitalism.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/...-in-the-us.php

[talaniman]

Few nations on the Earth have our technology or creative way of financing stuff. That was a great link JL, with some great embedded links as well. It illustrates the solution to GW/CC or whatever, lies in a GLOBAL effort that others nations are just not completely ready for. Heck to be fair we are just getting the bugs out of our own systems.

I think Clete just stopped at the pretty colors of the charts you provided. Shame.

[paraclete]

Few nations on the Earth have our technology or creative way of financing stuff. That was a great link JL, with some great embedded links as well. It illustrates the solution to GW/CC or whatever, lies in a GLOBAL effort that others nations are just not completely ready for. Heck to be fair we are just getting the bugs out of our own systems.

I think Clete just stopped at the pretty colors of the charts you provided. Shame.

very disingenuous of you tal, you know i think AGW is bunk and if anything is a northern hemisphere problem, a myth started by Thatcher for political purposes. You drink the koolaid if you want but posts suggesting others should change their lifestyle to preserve yours are bunk

[jlisenbe]

posts suggesting others should change their lifestyle to preserve yours are bunk

If anyone had posted a suggestion of that sort, then you would have a valid complaint. Since they didn't, then you don't. My point is simply that the west is leading the way in reducing carbon emissions. There is no point beyond that. Like you, I don't know that I accept the whole theory to begin with.