Recycled <span class="highlight">tyres</span>

It is already too late.
It has been proven that we are going into a natural global warming cycle but what we have done is remove the planets ability to recover from it.

I think your right mate. Its bloody hard to be optimistic. I,ve spent many hundreds of hours flying in small planes and choppers over Northern Australia...the destruction I,ve seen is horrific. Not from nature but man.

> qldcamper wrote: "It has been proven that we are going into a natural global warming cycle but what we have done is remove the planets ability to recover from it."

Not sure I understand what you're suggesting QC but I'm interested in reading the scientific "proof" you're relying on. Nothing "natural" about the current predicament according to all the reputable science I've read over the years.

Give me a minute and I will search my spreadsheet where I keep every doco, every 4 corners report, every newspaper article and every other form of learning I have come across in the last 50 years.

Yes, if you havent figured it out that was sarcasm.

Do your own bloody research maybe you will learn something instead of just challenging what other people say because you have no knowledge on the subject.

Is this thread going into a "warming cycle" :-)

yEP...NEED TO CHILL OUT AND NOT GET SO HEATED..

Around 20,000 years ago was the end of the last iceage. The world HAS been warming ever since. Simple unequivocal scientific fact. We are accelerating that warming, and it is probably beyond our capacity to make a difference now. Once the methane locked up in permafrost, and frigid ocean floors joins the party, carbon dioxide is probably irrelevant. Don't buy beachfront land.

Our green friends seem to be pretty keen on sequestering carbon dioxide in the ground, where eventually it'll be bound into rocks. Does it occur to them that for every "fossil" carbon atom locked away, they are also locking away two formerly atmospheric oxygen atoms?

Sorry, I'm not very bright, you'll have to spoonfeed me some credible links to that natural warming science QC. I'm far from an expert on the topic but I do usually recognise pseudo-scientific bs when I see it.

Just fyi, I've done PLENTY of research on global warming/climate change over decades, my interest being piqued by a lecture many years ago by a CSIRO climatologist, although I have to say that 4Corners, newspapers etc have never high up the list of "credible" sources I rely on (/s).

I confess I didn't completely wade through the many IPCC reports but I did read the Summary Reports and specific contributions which interested me. In the past I've also followed numerous debates between credible scientists -including skeptics like Judith Curry et al, now mostly quiet on the topic as the evidence has mounted against their opinions on specific climate issues.

It's my layman's understanding that the "natural warming cycle" possibility was one of the first examined and put to bed by credible climate scientists decades ago - as scientific process and integrity would expect them to have done. Most of the other anecdotal "explanations"/supposed contra-indicators (volcanoes, solar storms, aerosol etc) - often perpetrated by far more ignorant skeptics - have also been examined and found to be lacking. Just had a quick glance at the scienceSKEPTICAL SCIENCE website and I see there are now >200 "myths" which have been looked at and answered. Waste of valuable scientific resources, but useful from a public info perspective. That website also has a significant discussion area for people who wish to debate some of the myth rebuttals.

I'll leave it with you Bazooka, you obviously have a lot more time than me to have spent all day looking that lot up and writing about it.
Pretty sure an arguement against all that BS could be supported by a heap of other BS on the net if you look in the other direction.
Give you something to do tomorrow.

By my reading of it, human instigated CO2 (as against C) sequestration isn't something "greenies" thought up or particularly support Genny. Nor is it a significant part of the solution most scientists propose to limiting warming. It's expensive, has consequences down the track, and is a clean-up action rather than a prevention/limitation action - like cattle burp reductions (something our CSIRO is working on) would be for example. Hard for some to believe but cattle belching is a significant contributer to atmospheric methane. About a quarter of all USA atmospheric methane comes from cattle burps alone.

Sequestration already happens naturally via soils and to a much larger extent (about 30% of CO2 emissions) through oceanic absorption (hence oceanic acidification etc).

Interestingly, oxygen depletion - not a significant problem currently - HAS been looked at by scientists. It happens (obviously) for every additional molecule of CO2 we produce. Currently O2 depletion outdoes photosynthetic regeneration by a factor of ~2 - ie for every 1ppm increase in CO2 there is a loss of >2ppm of O2 in the atmosphere. CO2 sequestration would simply put those molecules temporarily elsewhere so will not add further to the "problem".

There's a world of difference between credible science and bs QC, although some would have you believe that uninformed opinion should be given equal footing. Fake news isn't the only problem with this age - false equivalence is just as bad.

Bazooka, you posted 'Interestingly, oxygen depletion - not a significant problem currently - HAS been looked at by scientists. It happens (obviously) for every additional molecule of CO2 we produce.' The same studies showed close to a molecule for molecule equivalence between the increase in CO2 and the decrease in O2, which puts paid to theories such as volcanoes and degassing of oceanic CO2 as the water warms and leaves the burning of carbon as the only mechanism. While I'm a scientist, I'm not an atmospheric physicist and long ago gave away trying to argue with sceptics, it becomes a game of whack-a-mole. Hopefully as a country we have now moved on.

The whole O2 depletion thing is obviously complex Warren. Data and models suggest it is also occurring in oceans as well as the atmosphere. Suffice to say that scientists are looking at many more climate-related issues than the general public realises.