posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 02:25 PM
a reply to: bbracken677
Of course they have. We are currently in an interglacial of the Quarternary glaciation. That means warm period after a period of snow and ice
accumulation due to the previous period. Melting snow and ice make a rising sea level. Not rocket science to figure that melting ice means rising
seas. Glad we agree on that aspect. I suspect where you disagree is the rate of rising sea levels being outside the bounds of normal.
Water vapor is natural and is also where precipitation comes from. Precipitation is kind of necessary for life to thrive on earth. See California.
Hence why people don't complain about it. It's kind of a good thing. CO2, in the right amounts, is also a necessary and a good thing as it is
basically what our plants utilize during respiration to create O2 for us to breathe. As far as that "high CO2" goes, you must be referring to
Robert Berner's GEOCARB III. This is from the GEOCARB III paper:
This type of modeling is incapable of delimiting shorter term CO2 fluctuations (Paleocene-Eocene boundary, late Ordovician glaciation) because
of the nature of the input data which is added to the model as 10 my (million year) or longer averages. Thus, exact values of CO2, as shown by
the standard curve, should not be taken literally and are always susceptible to modification. (pg 20)
In short, because these are such huge--10 million year averages--and prone to potential error in estimation, sniping out single measurements is very
ill-advised. The planet is incredibly complex and that should be pretty obvious to anyone who actually reads or scrolls through Berner's paper on
As far as why today is different from 300 mya, that's just as complicated of an answer as there are many causes to what makes the climate both known
and unknown. This paper should help you understand that complexity but the two factors that should be readily discernible are the "dimmer" sun (sun
grows in heat over time) and the earth's obliquity.
It's also important to note that neither C02 or water vapor are the only greenhouse gases. It's not just one thing on the rise. Atmospheric
methane is yet another that is increasing, particularly in the N. Hemisphere where one finds most of the developed world.
It kind of boggles my mind that some think that those things that we do on the planet have null effect on the planet as a whole. Deforestation is a
big thing that humans have done over the last several thousand years, predominately in the Northern Hemisphere. Forests are hugely involved with CO2
levels in the atmosphere as they, like the oceans, are a carbon sink but when deforestation happens, they become an atmospheric carbon source (cutting
or burning). Europe, a few thousand years ago, was heavily forested but as populations increased, deforestation occurred due to logging, clearing
for agricultural use or the development of human settlements. Today, forests like the Black Forest are just a small fraction of their original
extent. Not only did we blow it in terms of basically increasing atmospheric carbon in the air but we also removed huge tracts of forest that was
previously acting as that CO2 sink. How does this not effect how much CO2 is in the air? If forests have a large capacity to absorb atmospheric
CO2 and store it as carbon and we've chopped much of it down particularly in the N. hemisphere (and increasingly in the S. Hemisphere), then how can
have an effect on what gases exist in the atmosphere?