141–150 of 257 posts
Things like this make it hard to decide whether to invest in a 401k or defensible northerly land that could be homesteaded in a pinch.
Or any other sea in the proximity. With palm trees and other signs of life success.
next the tundra melts and releases an insane amount of methane. we are so screwed.
It seems like we keep discovering new positive feedback loops for global warming. Less ice means less reflection. Warmer arctic means more methane from permafrost. Desertification means less carbon capture. There was a recent article in Scientific American about likely changes in cloud formation from AGW. Some clouds reflect sun (cooling), while others trap heat (warming). Guess which are likely to increase? I doubt…
When you go and disturb that steady state by say releasing a million years worth of carbon sequestration over a century, you destabilize the whole thing.
Like a top spinning it all of a sudden collapses. And then humans realize that we were really just along for the ride & do not have a chance to re-stabilize.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is interesting the other comments in this area are vague and emotional, whereas the only thought out comment is downvoted because it is critical of global warming. This constant dynamic is what makes me skeptical of the whole global warming thing.
Comments criticizing evolution in favor of intelligent design will also be downvoted for the same reasons. The scientific consensus is that climate change is happening, and it's caused by us. The evidence in favor of the theory is overwhelming, so you'd have to publish a pretty substantial study, not a comment on an internet forum, if you would want to sensibly argue against anthropogenic climate change without being…
There are many who don't dispute that climate change occurs, what they say is that anthropogenic effects are, at this time, unknown and that any anthropogenic causes are minor compared to the various other causes.
Since I started taking an interest in this subject in the 1970's, the evidence of anthropogenic causes has been underwhelming.
As far as evolution and intelligent design are concerned, I have consigned both to the field of religious discussion and belief. I was an avid evolutionist until I started reading the actual results of experiments in the field. The results did not support any evolutionary model and still don't. As a result, I started to question why these scientists were pushing the wheelbarrow of the this model.
Just because someone is a scientist doesn't mean that they will completely logical and fair-minded about some model or another. Scientists are no different to any other group of people. They are people too and as such, have their own foibles and unsubstantiated beliefs.
If these scientists can demonstrate fair results then certainly we must look at those results. But the conclusions about what those results mean will depend on what an individual's starting point is. Just remember that old adage, to someone with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
If you are standing on scientific consensus as your "authority" then you are not acting in a manner that says you are investigating the facts as they are.
It may well be that anthropogenic causes will disrupt the planets climate in dangerous and possibly even unalterable ways. But I have yet to see any such evidence presented, nor have I seen valid questions being answered by these same anthropogenic climate change scientists. From where I stand, it appears that money still speaks louder than the facts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, I'm glad the consensus of scientists has never been wrong. It's also helpful the scientists can tell us who the true experts are, otherwise we'd never know.
Who else do you suggest should inform us if not scientists?
It's up to you to decide how and what you will believe.
[Afterthought edit]. Many years ago, I was given the following advice:
Surround yourself with experts, but make your own decisions as you see fit. Experts are just that, specialists in a narrow field and they do not see the bigger picture. It is up to you to do that for yourself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who else do you suggest should inform us if not scientists?
Maybe, you can look at the evidence presented and determine for yourself what conclusions you come to. It may be that you will determine that the evidence is for anthropogenic climate change. But then again, you might determine that the evidence is for natural processes and that anthropogenic climate change is extremely minor. It's up to you to decide how and what you will believe. [Afterthought edit]. Many years ago…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know why this has been down voted. Would you buy a property with a 50 year lease?
Probably because it’s a ridiculously trivial problem in the context of the full seriousness of climate change.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. Thermal expansion. It's a tiny effect, you won't see it in a glass of water in science class but when you've got oceans a few kilometers deep and humans living a few meters above them it can have an impact. 2. It's a feedback effect. Less ice means less light reflected means more energy in our oceans/atmosphere. In turn this creates more ice loss that won't be sea ice.
Water expands as it freezes. That’s why pipes burst in winter.