Separate names with a comma.
Posted By begreen,
May 2, 2019 at 9:09 PM
And that hypothesis is backed by?
I always get a chuckle when this ice recedes and uncovers a village where people once lived.
From that article:
"Regardless of the causes of this earlier warmth, it makes a nonsense of claims about “tipping points”, “methane release” and “melting permafrost” scares."
I'm just a dorky swiss engineer that tries to only worry about things in my circle of control.
The facts cited in this article are enlightening, but I don’t agree with all of their opinions or conclusions, on this. Just because some fraction of humanity managed to survive some past geological or meteorological events far more dramatic than what faces us in the near future, doesn’t mean we won’t be dramatically affected.
Heck, I have trouble sleeping at night when something at work is bothering me, and what we face here could be just a little more unnerving. I don’t have the ability to let things out of my control not bother me.
Yes, even the conclusions in the article are guarded. Skepticism in science is essential and healthy. Denial is not.
Except when the denial comes from other scientists, right?
Scientists with an agenda have often left science behind. That goes true both ways.
And then outside of science, there are those faced with covering the costs.
Our insurance is fairly high due to our proximity to the water. Before Maine we considered starting over in FL, but insurance costs are out of control, and of course the worsening storms. It seems that most of the gulf states and the south east will soon be under water, regardless of the cause.
It does seem extremely petty to me that folks are in denial of climate change and the effects of pollution. If you wouldn't have the exhaust from manufacturing pumped into your own home, then why let it out into the atmosphere and water ways? I feel like people are arguing some stupid things lately. It's very clear that there are changes happening on earth, it doesn't matter what causes these changes or why it happened. The focus needs to be on continuing the elimination of waste and noxious pollutants (regardless of golabal temperatures) rather than bicker about who's fault it is.
I simply don't understand why people care about this being a natural process or not. People are dying from this.
I am not denying that there is a certain amount of factual evidence too support climate change - but most of what we hear are for the benefit of few making money off of it. Their reasoning leaves a lot out of the picture- Volcanic eruptions- just one puts more into the atmosphere than all of mankind's entire history. ( remember the one that blew just a few years ago that blacked out most of Europe?) Volcanic eruptions on the ocean floors and plate shifts have seriously changed some of the major ocean currents such as the one that flows off the north west coast of the states and Canada ( happens to be a warm water one ) and that has a pretty huge effect on the jet-stream that swings from the northwest to eastern areas of the states. Another is off the African coast or Indochina area can't remember which right now. Earths magnetic poles have been shifting/ wiggling as well but likely has been going on for eons- more effects. Its all out there just got to read - oh by the way when when that huge cauldron under Yellowstone blows all bets are off ( more doomsday stuff). Then again it might never happen. Truth or fiction I do not know, factual part is the size of the volcanic system there. Nothing wrong with conservation and pollution reduction. If you want to get real picky you can blame pollution on science in the shortsighted view. ( that ought to get some hairs standing, lips quivering, eyebrows raised and a lot of capital letters sent my way - thats ok I am in a bit of lousy mood today any way) well any way its been fun - got to get to work and make a lot of contaminates now.
We all pollute our environment. Some more than others but the exhaust from my car or woodstove should not be "pumped into my home" to prove a false point. There are some pretty bad polluters that ought to be reigned in but where do you draw that line?
I'm talking about folks that claim burning fossil fuels has no environmental impact. Or the individuals that throw garbage out of their windows. You know what I'm talking about.
CO2 just passed 415ppm. That is the highest since before man was on the planet, including all volcanic eruptions since then. Coincidentally a temp of 87º was recorded high in the Arctic a couple of days ago. Most concerns are not about making a profit. Actually quite to the contrary, the most funding for denying is coming from those that are still profiting immensely. What is crazy is that we all benefit from cleaner air & water and a healthy ecosystem. This alone should be a motivator. Instead, we continue to steal from our children's future for our own short term benefit. Like any credit loan though, eventually one has to settle and pay up.
In the meantime, disinformation campaigns make it harder for educators to teach the facts.
Might want to do some in-depth digging on temps and one way adjustments as well as the effects of ocean currents ain't saying it doesn't happen but it is being bandied about like chicken little and the sky. And the us Gov ain't no poster child in this either.
Can do if you will provide a link or two. In the meantime, the very measurable and serious concern is the absorption of CO2 into the oceans. The consequences of ocean acidification are global and with potentially dire results.
"The current change appears to be the fastest in at least 300 million years, with the fastest known natural acidification event – occurring 55 million years ago – being probably ten times slower."
Check of your stats with a widely accepted chart. 300m/yrs temp is a co2 temp follower. 55m/yrs a wide split temp/co2, opposite of what should happen. today in general terms crossing each other. One has to accept the chart; looking around I have not seen a better one.History would tell us the we may have a + temp, flat , or -temp. Just a questioning thought on temp, not delving into acidification (i see for my writing, we both spelled acidifiacation wrong). chart dates to 2001 but over millions of years small errors a PS "the endless repetition of history.” - Winston Churchil"
What the chart doesn't show is the methane released by the school bus sized herbivores covering the planet. Dinosaur emissions caused high global temperatures, but the carbon was offset by the also super sized flora.
Even if data is in a chart, in quotes, cited, or from a "reputable" source doesn't mean it's not being manipulated. The global climate is changing, it's foolish to bicker about why.
What info did you ask for and didn't get? Can you give examples of people preaching that those without cat stoves are evil? There are plenty of noncats that burn cleaner than many cat stoves.
take history and read it as you wish, we are a little(sarc) smaller than our ancestors, tomatoes smaller than than what the Sinclair Dino ate.Believe or reject . co2 and high temp didn't cause or affect their extinction, comparing our brain size and intell i think man(so sexist), strike that, people will survive. one last point , amongst ordinary folks, the accusation of use of manipulation data as false is akin to the political talk of the day. As Bg said bring in some links to prove what your sayin. I'm waiting for mother nature to get her due. The two, man and nature, will get it right something the Sinclair Dino couldn't do.
Beleive what you want to believe, just don't let some colorful boxes control your mind.
here is your blk/wht box
It's a bit of a tangent. But as long as it has been brought up, there are 15 times more domestic animals on land now than wild animals. Add a massive amount more humans.
As for the colorful chart by amateur Monte Heib, he is hardly "widely accepted" as an authority, nor is his hand-drawn, erroneous chart. (with no link to source) Quite the opposite it seems.