How bad would global warming have to be to submerge the land between England and Europr making England an island?
Worse than it is now.
So what, you silly retard?
The Earth has warmed and cooled due to natural factors in the past. Forest fires have started due to natural factors in the past. Now human caused factors (primarily deforestation and the burning of fossil carbon into the atmosphere) are causing an increase in global average temperatures. Humans now cause some of the forest fires due to carelessness with cigarette butts, improper campfires, and mismanaged so-called 'controlled burns', as well as deliberate arson. Just because something happened naturally in the past does not mean that it is impossible for humans to have an influence now, moron.
You know that what you just said was exactly what was said in the 70s to prove that the world was cooling and we would be in a massive human caused ice age.
Jeez, Katzhitbrainz, you have got to be one of the most misinformed, confused and generally brain damaged retards on this forum. Your post makes no sense. You claim that "
what (I) said is exactly what was said in the 70s to prove the world is cooling and we would be in a massive human caused ice age" but that is an
insane statement on so many levels, you little wacko you. What I just said is that "
human caused factors (primarily deforestation and the burning of fossil carbon into the atmosphere) are causing an increase in global average temperatures", so what do you imagine that has to do with your global cooling fantasies, retard?
"
What was said in the 70s to prove the world is cooling"......LOLOLOLOLOLOL...."
what was said" by who exactly, you clueless moron? Where exactly did anyone try to "
prove the world is cooling"? You're so gullible and so full of bogus denier cult bullshit. "
And we would be in a massive human caused ice age"....that is very wacko indeed, little cretin....in the 70's, there was some speculation (a minority opinion, BTW) that natural orbital cycles might be bringing the Earth back towards another period of glaciation, which might really get going in a few thousand years, and there was some investigation into the possibility that mankind's industrial atmospheric pollution might be causing some measure of short term cooling, but nobody at all was "
proving" or even suggesting that
humans were going to cause a "
massive ice age". That's just some kind of crazy delusion you've been infected with. There was far more speculation among scientist in the 1970's that human caused warming would dominate the natural cycles and possibly prevent any new period of glaciation for as long as CO2 levels remained elevated.
Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s
USA TODAY
By Doyle Rice
2/22/2008
(excerpts)
The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era. The '70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age. But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends. The study reports, "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales."
...Robert Henson, a writer at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and author of The Rough Guide to Climate Change, says: "This is an important part of science history, and Peterson and his co-authors have done a great job of excavating it. People have long claimed that scientists in the 1970s were convinced a new ice age was imminent. But in fact, many researchers at the time were already more concerned about the long-term risks of global warming." Along with Peterson, the study was also authored written by William Connolly of the British Antarctic Survey and John Fleck of The Albuquerque Journal. The research will be published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.
Copyright 2011 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
(
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes)
More than that, human activity caused a hole in the ozone layer and we were all going to get cancer and die.
And here's further evidence (as if any was needed) that you are a brainwashed retard. Are you really idiotic enough to deny the reality of the scientifically measured damage that humans were doing to the ozone layer that protects us and the rest of the biosphere from the full effects of the sun's ultraviolet radiation output? LOLOLOL......you know, the Flat Earth Society has a spot open for you.....go ahead, you'd fit right in.....LOLOLOL.
Here's the facts:
Ozone Science: The Facts Behind the Phaseout
United States Environmental Protection Agency
(government publication - not under copyright - free to reproduce)
(excerpts)
The Earth's ozone layer protects all life from the sun's harmful radiation, but human activities have damaged this shield. Less protection from ultraviolet light will, over time, lead to higher skin cancer and cataract rates and crop damage. The U.S., in cooperation with 190 other countries, is phasing out the production of ozone-depleting substances in an effort to safeguard the ozone layer.
In the early 1970s, researchers began to investigate the effects of various chemicals on the ozone layer, particularly CFCs, which contain chlorine. They also examined the potential impacts of other chlorine sources. Chlorine from swimming pools, industrial plants, sea salt, and volcanoes does not reach the stratosphere. Chlorine compounds from these sources readily combine with water and repeated measurements show that they rain out of the troposphere very quickly. In contrast, CFCs are very stable and do not dissolve in rain. Thus, there are no natural processes that remove the CFCs from the lower atmosphere. Over time, winds drive the CFCs into the stratosphere. The CFCs are so stable that only exposure to strong UV radiation breaks them down. When that happens, the CFC molecule releases atomic chlorine. One chlorine atom can destroy over 100,000 ozone molecules. The net effect is to destroy ozone faster than it is naturally created. To return to the analogy comparing ozone levels to a stream's depth, CFCs act as a siphon, removing water faster than normal and reducing the depth of the stream.
One example of ozone depletion is the annual ozone "hole" over Antarcticathat has occurred during the Antarctic Spring since the early 1980s. Rather than being a literal hole through the layer, the ozone hole is a large area of the stratosphere with extremely low amounts of ozone. Ozone levels fall by over 60% during the worst years. In addition, research has shown that ozone depletion occurs over the latitudes that include North America, Europe, Asia, and much of Africa, Australia, and South America. Over the U.S., ozone levels have fallen 5-10%, depending on the season. Thus, ozone depletion is a global issue and not just a problem at the South Pole. Reductions in ozone levels will lead to higher levels of UVB reaching the Earth's surface. The sun's output of UVB does not change; rather, less ozone means less protection, and hence more UVB reaches the Earth. Studies have shown that in the Antarctic, the amount of UVB measured at the surface can double during the annual ozone hole. Another study confirmed the relationship between reduced ozone and increased UVB levels in Canada during the past several years. Laboratory and epidemiological studies demonstrate that UVB causes nonmelanoma skin cancer and plays a major role in malignant melanoma development. In addition, UVB has been linked to cataracts. All sunlight contains some UVB, even with normal ozone levels. It is always important to limit exposure to the sun. However, ozone depletion will increase the amount of UVB, which will then increase the risk of health effects. Furthermore, UVB harms some crops, plastics and other materials, and certain types of marine life.
Today none of that is true.
Actually today both are still true but you are so fucked up that you can't tell up from down.
