Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Trees and plants "breath" CO2, but it's a pollutant.
In the 1980's Green House gases were going to corrode the Ozone layer and by the year 2000, we would need 1000 SPF sun protection or risk being burnt to a crisp because our ozone will have been depleted to such an extent. I can go outside without any sun tan lotion on, in the middle of the summer, and stay out for AT LEAST 30 minutes and MAYBE suffer a second degree burn. MAYBE.
Environmental "Scientists" have now claimed that by 2020, 2/3 of all oxygen requiring organisms on Earth will become extinct and that most of FL will be underwater due to the polar ice caps melting.
LOOOOOOOOOOL
Btw, O2 gas is toxic at 100% levels. Ask anyone. They will tell you.
No one answered my initial questions. To what degree does human interaction with our environment cause all these potential catastrophic climate changes. Anyone?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/03/09 22:05:35
Frazzled wrote: Lets assume CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Cool, ok no problem.
That doesn't make it pollution.
That doesn't make it toxic.
Giving it a a name "greenhouse gas" doesn't suddenly make it a death ray.
WITHOUT IT ALL AEROBIC LIFE ON EARTH WOULD BE DEAD.
I'm confused what your argument is here is it:
A) -that CO2 must be classed either as "pollution" or "toxic" for the EPA to have jurisdiction under US law to pass regulations concerning CO2 emissions?
or B) -that human CO2 emissions (regardless of how we label the substance) has negligible or no influence on the natural shifts in global climate?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/09 22:06:36
WrentheFaceless wrote: If breathing it in, in large or even medium quantities, will cause injury or death, I general consider a pollutant.
From Wikipedia: "CO2 is an asphyxiant gas and not classified as toxic or harmful in accordance with Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals standards of United Nations Economic Commission for Europe by using the OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals."
Let's put that into terms common folk can understand. It isn't the CO2 that is harmful, it's the lack of free oxygen that'll kill you. If you try to breath pure CO2, then yes, you'd asphyxiate. Magically, the same thing happens with Nitrogen. If you were to breath pure Nitrogen, you'd die from asphyxiation. Does that make Nitrogen a pollutant? Did you know our atmosphere is somewhere around 75% Nitrogen? Every breath you take is comprised of nearly three quarters gas which your lungs don't pass into your blood stream. All the Nitrogen you breath in, you breath back out again. What about Helium? That's the gas that makes balloons float. People inhale it to make their voice sound silly. It's also an asphyxiant gas? Is Helium a pollutant?
What about ingesting it? CO2 is the stuff that makes soda fizzy. Drink a lot of soda and you ingest a lot of CO2. You even inhale (breath in) quantities as you drink it from the can or a glass. It doesn't cause injury or death unless you're drinking gallons of the stuff in a single day. Even then the caffeine will probably do more harm in that quantity than the CO2 will.
Gasses that are poisonous to us are stuff like CO or Carbon Monoxide. That's because the lungs pass it into the blood stream where it is processed just like free Oxygen is. Things break down when the cells (brain cells especially) can't metabolize CO and thus die. CO is what comes out your exhaust pipe. CO is a pollutant. CO also creates smog but is not a greenhouse gas.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/09 22:13:04
Frazzled wrote: Lets assume CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Cool, ok no problem.
That doesn't make it pollution.
That doesn't make it toxic.
Actually, by definition, it does. Too much CO2 causes harful effects, that is all that is nessicary. Again, it's not it's mere existence, having high concentrations.
Giving it a a name "greenhouse gas" doesn't suddenly make it a death ray.
WITHOUT IT ALL AEROBIC LIFE ON EARTH WOULD BE DEAD.
It doesn't need to melt steel to be a pollutant. Nitrates are used to grow plants and are very good at it, but it is a pollutant when it ends up in rivers and streams and cause algal bloom.
Climate changes. Life changes. Its not harmful to life. It just forces life to change and adapt.
The problem isn't change it'self, it's that, because of human actions, it's happening much faster than it normally would.
We've now gone to stupid level Alpha Mike (my average double tap..."wait how can that methusalah be one of the fastest guys on the course?" " Well he doesn't actually aim that second shot. Its more of a guideline...")
Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it stupid.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Frazzled wrote: Lets assume CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Cool, ok no problem.
That doesn't make it pollution.
That doesn't make it toxic.
It absolutely does and is in sufficient quantities. Otherwise by this logic nothing is a pollutant. The argument is that we have been pumping sufficient CO2 into the atmosphere to reach sufficient quantities to call it a pollutant.
Giving it a a name "greenhouse gas" doesn't suddenly make it a death ray.
It doesnt, but thats not the aim either. What "greenhouse gas" means is that it retains heat, not that it automatically kills you if youre near any of it.
Climate changes. Life changes. Its not harmful to life. It just forces life to change and adapt.
major climate changes tend to involve mass extinctions and severe biosphere disruption. It is absolutely harmful to lots of life. That happens from time to time, but is usually considered a traumatic environmental event, and having one species cause it, on a much faster scale than natural change, is an issue.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
or B) -that human CO2 emissions (regardless of how we label the substance) has negligible or no influence on the natural shifts in global climate?
Is there a scientific study that says, unequivocally that humans consume too much CO2 and that at a certain level it shifts the global climate? What is that amount where "normal" becomes "toxic" and is there a scientific paper that says we are the "too much"?
major climate changes tend to involve mass extinctions and severe biosphere disruption. It is absolutely harmful to lots of life. That happens from time to time, but is usually considered a traumatic environmental event, and having one species cause it, on a much faster scale than natural change, is an issue.
But this happened multiple times in the Earth's history long before the industrial revolution. Why is it of concern now vs. then and again, how are we contributing exactly? Quantitatively? Other than the supposed meteor that caused the extinction of the Dinosaurs, what traumatic environmental event do you mean. The multiple ice ages didn't occur overnight.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/03/09 22:11:41
Its like saying that because some sugar in your diet is fine, having any amount of sugar in your diet is fine.
As for Whembly and denial, I recall an earlier post when he explicitly stated that he believed climate change was real just that humans weren't responsible. But that was before Trump, when Whembly actually argued in good faith. Unfortunately he's just in it to troll at this point by his own admission.
whembly wrote: ...man, I'm not dressed right for this religious discussions.
Stop with the "IT"S LIKE A RELIGION!!!!!!" gak. It doesn't help your argument at all.
Sure it does when the response is to BURN THE HERETIC when there's dissenting views.
No. We're engaging two sides that has experts proclaiming diametric views.
And, as had already been shown, one side (that climate change doesn't exist/isn't man made), is rejected by the vast majority of climate scientists. It's the same reason that Spontaneous generation
My contention is that it's very much up for debate. Hence my challenge to the word 'majority' or 'consensus' arguments.
Secondly, can we acknowledge BOTH that some experts are raising the alarm and other experts going 'woah, it's not that conclusive' as legitimate?
Not when, again, the vast majority of evidence supports man made climate change. It's like saying that holocaust denial is just as valid as believing in the holocaust because some historians say it didn't happen. There are disagreements on specfics, and to what amount in the general community (also known as, every piece of science ever), but man-made climate change is heavily supported by the evidence.
And there are studies, heavily supported by evidences that refutes that.
Are you willing to be wrong?
Yes, there are very few downsides if I am wrong. Clean air, clean water, energy independence, ect. I can't think of any real downsides besides that some companies won't make as much profit, and we'll spend some money doing things we should really do anyway. Are you however prepared to be wrong?
Sure, I'm prepared. I just don't believe that policy-makers should be doing anything drastic without explicit proof and repeatable science.
What unfounded beliefs are you zero'ing in exactly? What troubles you?
The unfounded belief that, despite all evidance to the countryay, 90% of the sicneitifc community is wrong about man made-climate change.
That 90% is full on debunked boyo. That's the point I'm driving at. There are distinctions between... 'eh, it MIGHT be happening, but we can't prove it so let's study it' vs. 'I believe warming is fulling cause by anthropogenic activities'. The problem with those 90+ % studies is that they group those two responses into one big bucket that says 'experts believes warming is caused by human activities.'.
Edit:And more specifically, how, honestly, did you decide it? Was it looking at the evidence, and descending which had a strong case, or what it politics? Because I think we all know the answer.
I'm in the, I don't know camp.
Both sides of this debate are making their cases and credentialed people challenges their findings. (as research & scientists are supposed to do)
What I object to, is this idea that it's all settled. (if it's settled, why are we still spending fething ton of money for research??) And, thus policy makers are pushing these debunked 'it's settled' mantra when pushing for changes under the umbrella to combat climate change.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/09 22:10:49
major climate changes tend to involve mass extinctions and severe biosphere disruption. It is absolutely harmful to lots of life. That happens from time to time, but is usually considered a traumatic environmental event, and having one species cause it, on a much faster scale than natural change, is an issue.
But this happened multiple times in the Earth's history long before the industrial revolution. Why is it of concern now vs. then and again, how are we contributing exactly? Quantitatively?
Similarly, because an asteroid wiping out most of the planet's life was not a concern hundreds of millions of years ago, it is not a concern now.
major climate changes tend to involve mass extinctions and severe biosphere disruption. It is absolutely harmful to lots of life. That happens from time to time, but is usually considered a traumatic environmental event, and having one species cause it, on a much faster scale than natural change, is an issue.
But this happened multiple times in the Earth's history long before the industrial revolution. Why is it of concern now vs. then and again, how are we contributing exactly? Quantitatively?
Similarly, because an asteroid wiping out most of the planet's life was not a concern hundreds of millions of years ago, it is not a concern now.
I don't understand your point, sorry. Can you explain please.
Dirt is a pollutant. If we breath large quantities we get the terminal condition called "dirt nap." It must be reduced!
CO2 is harmful to the environment, which is harmful, in turn, to us.
Now you're just blowing smoke er CO2 out your ass. CO2 is not harmful to the environment. Period end of story.
It is not a toxin.
Too much CO2 reduces the oxygen affinity of haemoglobin (which admittedly is by you directly inhaling it), as well as reducing the pH of the Ocean.
Too much water will kill you as well. I've heard too much chocolate is bad too. These are not pollutants.
not like the amount of lead I am going to get tonight. On the positive I'm hopeful a frag bit doesn't smash me in the leg again. Thats annoying.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Trees and plants "breath" CO2, but it's a pollutant.
Again, it isn't the mere existence, it's having high concentrations.
In the 1980's Green House gases were going to corrode the Ozone layer and by the year 2000, we would need 1000 SPF sun protection or risk being burnt to a crisp because our ozone will have been depleted to such an extent. I can go outside without any sun tan lotion on, in the middle of the summer, and stay out for AT LEAST 30 minutes and MAYBE suffer a second degree burn. MAYBE.
So, were these things claimed and supported by actual scientific groups with evidence, or no?
Environmental "Scientists" have now claimed that by 2020, 2/3 of all oxygen requiring organisms on Earth will become extinct and that most of FL will be underwater due to the polar ice caps melting.
Seriously, who is claiming this? This argument is a straw-man and a half.
Btw, O2 gas is toxic at 100% levels. Ask anyone. They will tell you.
No one answered my initial questions. To what degree does human interaction with our environment cause all these potential catastrophic climate changes. Anyone?
We aren't 100% sure but they appear to be in large part because of our activities. Or, too be more accurate, the natural climate shift is being exacerbated by out activities.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Wow. Everyone just skipped right over my post where I lay out facts that CO2 is not a pollutant and is not harmful to people. I think you guys just like to argue.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Its like saying that because some sugar in your diet is fine, having any amount of sugar in your diet is fine.
As for Whembly and denial, I recall an earlier post when he explicitly stated that he believed climate change was real just that humans weren't responsible. But that was before Trump, when Whembly actually argued in good faith. Unfortunately he's just in it to troll at this point by his own admission.
Nith... I'm not denying that the Climate it's changing. We have seasons... some are normal and others abnormal.
The debate is twofold: 1) how much of it is naturally causing, and what are the reprecussions to our environment? 2) how much of it is caused by human activities, and what are the reprecussions?
If you think I'm trolling, just hit the friendly triangle and put me on ignore.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/03/09 22:19:32
Breotan wrote: Wow. Everyone just skipped right over my post where I lay out facts that CO2 is not a pollutant and is not harmful to people. I think you guys just like to argue.
This is the internet! Of course they like to argue!
NinthMusketeer wrote: Its like saying that because some sugar in your diet is fine, having any amount of sugar in your diet is fine.
As for Whembly and denial, I recall an earlier post when he explicitly stated that he believed climate change was real just that humans weren't responsible. But that was before Trump, when Whembly actually argued in good faith. Unfortunately he's just in it to troll at this point by his own admission.
Inversely you're arguing if you have too much sugar then sugar is now classififed as a pollutant and the EPA can for you to take daily blood tests to make sure you haven't had enough sugar.
Co2 but its very nature is not harmful. Its needed by plants to form the energy chain we all depend on.
It may help to change temperatures but that doesn't make it a pollutant nor is climate change pollution. Its a environmental factor that just is.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Breotan wrote: Wow. Everyone just skipped right over my post where I lay out facts that CO2 is not a pollutant and is not harmful to people. I think you guys just like to argue.
This is the internet! Of course they like to argue!
No gak!
And still no one has expressed concern over my alpha mike shooting technique. I am going to demonstrate it tonight!
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Breotan wrote: Wow. Everyone just skipped right over my post where I lay out facts that CO2 is not a pollutant and is not harmful to people. I think you guys just like to argue.
This is the internet! Of course they like to argue!
Yea, of course it is. I don't know why I forgot that.
NinthMusketeer wrote: As for Whembly and denial, I recall an earlier post when he explicitly stated that he believed climate change was real just that humans weren't responsible.
I believe this is the case for most "climate-deniers" actually. Which is why it's a bad terminology, not conclusive to a fruitful discourse.
No one is denying that there exist a climate.
Few (almost no-one I think) are denying the very existence of climate change. Indeed, the climate has fluctuated significantly if we start to go back millions of years.
What people are denying is the widespread conclusion of the extent to which human activity (primarily through the burning of fossile fuel) has a noticeable effect on the natural ebb and flow of earths changing climate.
It is 100% scientific FACT that smoking can cause lung cancer. There is ZERO evidence to what degree humans are causing "Climate Change". It is happening, but show me the science that shows to what degree Humans contribute. Quantitatively.
Dirt is a pollutant. If we breath large quantities we get the terminal condition called "dirt nap." It must be reduced!
CO2 is harmful to the environment, which is harmful, in turn, to us.
Now you're just blowing smoke er CO2 out your ass. CO2 is not harmful to the environment. Period end of story.
It is not a toxin.
Too much CO2 reduces the oxygen affinity of haemoglobin (which admittedly is by you directly inhaling it), as well as reducing the pH of the Ocean.
Too much water will kill you as well. I've heard too much chocolate is bad too. These are not pollutants.
not like the amount of lead I am going to get tonight. On the positive I'm hopeful a frag bit doesn't smash me in the leg again. Thats annoying.
I mean, other than the definition of pollution pretty much being the introduction of something harmful or poisonous into the environment, there isn't much else to say. Unless of course for whatever reason you don't consider pH dropping into the acid end of the pH spectrum to be harmful to things.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/09 22:22:47
or B) -that human CO2 emissions (regardless of how we label the substance) has negligible or no influence on the natural shifts in global climate?
Is there a scientific study that says, unequivocally that humans consume too much CO2 and that at a certain level it shifts the global climate? What is that amount where "normal" becomes "toxic" and is there a scientific paper that says we are the "too much"?
We dont "consume" CO2, we produce it, part of the problem is that in addition to pumping out a whole lot of CO2, we've also dramatically cleared much of what *did* consume CO2 and scrub the atmosphere in the past.
If you want exact specific numbers, ask a climatologist or take classes on the subject.
I can provide a few sources on google that however back up the larger point.
IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Note that IPCC uses the following terms to indicate the assessed likelihood, using expert judgement, of an outcome or a result: Virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence, Extremely likely >95%, Very likely > 90%, and Likely > 66%.
[2] Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, D.C. Lowe, G. Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga, M. Schulz and R. Van Dorland. 2007. Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
[3] Bowen, G.J., J. B. West, B. H. Vaugh n, T. E. Dawson, J. R. Ehleringer, M. L. Fogel, K. Hobson, J. Hoogewerff , C. Kendall, C.-T. Lai, C. C. Miller, D. Noone, H. Sch warc z, and C. J. Still. 2009. Isoscapes to Address Large-Scale Earth Science Challenges EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 90:109-116.
[4] Alley, R.B., T. Berntsen, N.L. Bindoff, Z. Chen, A. Chidthaisong, P. Friedlingstein, J.M. Gregory, G.C. Hegerl, M. Heimann, B. Hewitson, B.J. Hoskins, F.Joos, J. Jouzel, V. Kattsov, U. Lohmann, M. Manning, T. Matsuno, M. Molina, Neville Nicholls, Jonathan Overpeck, D. Qin, G. Raga, V. Ramaswamy, J. Ren, M. Rusticucci, S. Solomon, R. Somerville, T. F. Stocker, P.A. Stott, R.J. Stouffer, P. Whetton, R.A. Wood, D. Wratt. 2007. Summary for Policy Makers In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
[5] Hansen, J., L. Nazarenko, R. Ruedy, M. Sato, J. Willis, A. Del Genio, D. Koch, A. Lacis, K. Lo, S. Menon, T. Novakov, J. Perlwitz, G. Russell, G.A. Schmidt, and N. Tausnev. 2005. Earth’s energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications. Science 308:1431-1435.
[6Hegerl, G.C., F. W. Zwiers, P. Braconnot, N.P. Gillett, Y. Luo, J.A. Marengo Orsini, N. Nicholls, J.E. Penner and P.A. Stott. 2007. Understanding and Attributing Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
[7] Santer, B.D., M. F. Wehner, M. L. Wigley, R. Sausen, G. A. Meehl, K. E. Taylor, C. Ammann, J. Arblaster, W. M. Washington, J. S. Boyle, W. Brüggemann. 2003. Contributions of anthropogenic and natural forcing to recent tropopause height changes. Science, 301: 479–483.
[8] Santer, B.D., P. W. Thorne, L. Haimberger, K. E. Taylor, T. M. L. Wigley, J. R. Lanzante, S. Solomon, M. Free, P. J. Gleckler, P. D. Jones, T. R. Karl, S. A. Klein, C. Mears, D. Nychka, G. A. Schmidt, S. C. Sherwood, and F. J. Wentz. 2008. Consistency of modeled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere. International Journal of Climatology, DOI: 10.1002/joc.1756
[9] Keeling, R.F., S.C. Piper, A.F. Bollenbacher and J.S. Walker. 2008. Atmospheric CO2 records from sites in the SIO air sampling network. In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.
[10] Walker W., Parrington, J.R. and F. Feiner. 1989. Nuclides and Isotopes, Fourteenth Edition, General Electric Company. San Jose, CA.
[11] Clark, I.D. and P. Fritz. 1997. Environmental Isotopes in Hydrogeology. CRC Press Lewis Publishers, New York.
[12] Keeling, C. D., T. P. Whorf, M. Wahlen, and J. van der Plicht 1995, Interannual extremes in the rate of rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1980, Nature, 375, 666–670.
major climate changes tend to involve mass extinctions and severe biosphere disruption. It is absolutely harmful to lots of life. That happens from time to time, but is usually considered a traumatic environmental event, and having one species cause it, on a much faster scale than natural change, is an issue.
But this happened multiple times in the Earth's history long before the industrial revolution. Why is it of concern now vs. then and again, how are we contributing exactly? Quantitatively?
It has, but on much longer timescales, but with traumatic biosphere consequences.
If you're asking me to look up direct numbers on the current situation vs previous eras, I'm going to defer to google on that one and submit that searching for and presenting college or graduate level data is not something I have either the time or expertise for on my own during lulls at work
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
