I think a lot of the worry about nuke power has faded relative to the hippie-dippie nonsense of a few decades ago. But then I don't pay too much attention to the kinds of people who get upset about that kind of thing, so my perception may be off.
Good logic, but plants, the driving force of 99.999999% of every living thing on earth, would plumit in their ability to do photosynthesis. Also, they are evolved for current solar emissions, not reduced ones. This presents a slew of problems we dont even know about.
Yea, snowpack is a huge one. Western Cascades, a few degrees IS the difference between snow and rain.
Plants will thrive in warming planet with increased CO2 levels, as long as they have water.
If I remember right the French had a pretty good nuke program that would allow them to strip of the used top layer off the nuclear rod allowing them to re-use it over and over until it was pretty much gone, so the left-over waste was very low compared to the us system.
Man, if you are in North Idaho you need to research the Missoula floods, and the Clark Fork's role in it, you would enjoy it.
But we're not frozen either which was what the climate crisis was decades ago before it was changed to "global warming" and then "climate change."
Thank you I will, I have looked a bit into the whole super volcano but not much on the Ice age flooding.
You are spot on, almost. Yup, the CO2 rise we are looking at would likely be helpful for plants, and we would actually have slightly more water in the atmosphere (since its warmer, easier to evaporate), which should lead to slightly higher amounts of rainfall (variance due to local topography and location). But, the insurmountable issue is that plants are evolved to live in specific climates, elevations, soil types, avg rainfall, local herbivore interactions, and parasitic interactions(think Bark Beetle) that have been layed down over thousands, potentially millions of years.
I don't know of anytime in the last 50 years where anyone was worried about global cooling, except in the event of nuclear war.
Your right sort of it was just shy of 50 year ago all through the 70s all the talk was about global cooling and mini ice age and scientist could not even agree back then. Just like today there are two sides to every coin!
Yea, we have gotten way off topic. I personally think humans will be around for a very long time, there is just going to be alot of variance along the way for various factors: war, oil, CO2, climate, etc.
This doesn't mean anything. Any closed system can be broken by adding something to it that it can't handle. CO2 levels are rising because it is produced faster than it is consumed, and it doesn't just go away. So whether it is .01% or .000001%, there is more of it in the atmosphere. 50% than it has historically been for all of our time on earth, and the highest its been in 14 million years.
And the more fear the scientific claim can generate the more coin there is to fund research papers. The sad thing is that as we become desensitized as they continue to cry wolf we will ultimately ignore a real threat.
Should try reading more, it was a real concern.
Should try posting links, instead of insults.
If the system was 0.01% short of failure it was already doomed. Try learning about biological feedback systems. Here is a hint: Why is the oxygen content of our atmosphere constant at approximately 20%? What is the relationship of CO2 and atmospheric Oxygen within the carbon cycle? What is the relationship of solar cycles to the Earth's temperature? Why do climate scientists suppress data that might prevent funding?
