111–120 of 356 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. People often get lost in this "we must save the planet" argument, but realistically, the planet is gonna be fine. Preventing climate change is about saving humanity , not the planet.
How is this pedantic point useful in any way?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. The amplitudes of co2 ppm seem to always have been within a certain band though, topping out at 300ppm. Right now, we're at 420ppm and increasing what looks like exponentially. [0] I'm not saying humans won't be fine but we've never been so dependent on the stability of the climate before. People will die, get displaced, suffer economically, etc as far as I understand. [0] https://www.…
It was over 4000ppm during the Cambrian period 500m years ago, then down to about where it is today in the Carboniferious period, during the 60 million year period where trees evolved to make wood, but nothing had evolved to eat it yet, so dead trees literally just piled up for 60 million years. Then during the Mezozoic it went up into the 2000s again, lots of dino farts or something? Then back under 1000 again and d…
> On the positive, the earth has been much warmer and much colder, and has had more carbon and less carbon in the atmosphere.
the way I read it suggesting that it'll be fine. But it won't be, if co2 increased to 4000 ppm quickly enough, humans would not be fine. There were no humans during the time you were describing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The doomsday cult Oh shut it. You can't have any knowledge at all about this issue and not appreciate that the problem is not temperature as such but the rapidity of the change - over 150 years rather than 15000. Your troll post is an insult to intelligence. Folks, don't waste your time trying to reason with such bad-faith arguments. It's a form of theft, because the time cost to refute bullshit is about 10x that to…
There is plenty of criticism over relying on mathematical models that fail to accurately predict the future (all of the glaciers were predicted to have melted 3 years ago, snow was supposed to have been a thing of the past, etc.), cherry picking data, questionable measurement & sampling, not considering other forcing inputs, etc. It's a complicated claim that has valid criticism on it's foundational pieces If any foundational premise of the claim is invalidated, the entire model is invalidated. The consensus models are complicated so I'm not surprised that it has a difficult time standing up against scrutiny & needs to be adjusted frequently.
There is also dissent among scientists, including from Nobel Laureates (who had opportunities cancelled after dissenting). "The doomsday cult" reference comes from the doom & gloom sensationalism. For example, I a heard chorus of "we are fucked" from coworkers in the office about 15 years ago in response to some news back then. I don't agree that "we are fucked". Humans have been through more environmentally challenging times with less technology & global knowledge.
The climate is changing...always has changed & always will change. What are we going to do about it? Are we going to pretend that we can stave off the inevitable, taxing/restricting the population which weakens their ability to adjust to these inevitable changes...while wealth is concentrated to the elites? There is a widespread perception that is happening. When the issues reach it's crescendo later in this decade & the fallout in the 2030s (winter occurs after the Solar Solstice, solar exposure increases during winter), there will be many who will not buy the APGW narrative as the reason for their problems. The peaceful solution is a decoupling from systems that don't benefit the person/group, which I expect to happen. Others, such as Peter Turchin think there is a high probability of violent uprising & he seems to think addressing APGW is a unifying force...I disagree on both premises but I think his analysis is valid & worth getting into.
I think the animus generated by climate alarmism putting the blame on the population reduces effective cooperation among people & will be exasperated as the climate does change, as the Geomagnetic wander deepens in it's cycle, as magnetic fields fluctuate in our solar system, etc. A spirit of cooperation will unify humanity while the blame game will cause conflict. Doom & gloom is unhelpful. The "doomsday cult" will increase in their doom & gloom as people walk away from their petulance & their social leverage wanes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. People often get lost in this "we must save the planet" argument, but realistically, the planet is gonna be fine. Preventing climate change is about saving humanity , not the planet.
How is this pedantic point useful in any way?
Because it forces us to recognize that the risk isn't to "the Earth" as a separate entity, but to ourselves specifically (well, our future descendants).
We've already confirmed through our behavior that humans largely don't care about any other part of the Earth ecosystem, so asking people to basically do the right thing as a favor to the Earth are probably wasting their time.
Would it theoreticaly possible to find frozen animals 120.000 years old with still intact DNA?
This isn't really "frozen animals" and everything was sort of mixed together so they had to compare remaining fragments to existing sequences:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/07/science/oldest-dna-greenl...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
People worry about accelerating climate change now because we live here now. It’s not a theoretical science thing. We have farms and cities and towns and bridges and dams and reservoirs in particular places, and we are accelerating the depreciation of many of them. The result will be tremendous loss of wealth, movement of populations, and the associated social consequences of those. Humanity doesn’t hate itself, we l…
But Climate change is different, it speaks to the psyche of humans, the modern story of the flood. And in the same way it gives people meaning & without religion in the West they form morality around it. Those for it, are good, those against it, are bad.
That doesn't mean its not something important or real, and we have to solve it. But it's one of the many things for us humans to solve.
*In worst prognoses, climate changes will affect 10 mil deaths per year, which is the same amount cancer is doing every year today.
This is a very important project. There is a joke in here about "why not wait 2 years for the ice to melt off if you wanted to look at the mud underneath?" But as the article states, "'This will change climate models because it redefines our basic understanding of how ice moves,' explains Dorthe Dahl-Jensen." Much, if not the majority, of climate science is the creation of models (differential equations mostly) that…
You're adding important context but I would like to clarify something to highlight just how complex climate change really is. I also am going to make a few related comments, as I do most of my research on melt in Greenland. Full disclosure: I do know some of the people in this article but I have never been to eGRIP specifically. I will be in Greenland in a week nearby though. No matter what the far future holds, the…
The distinction I believe the article is trying to make around the "first-core-to-ground" sentiment, is that this is the first time a core has been drilled through the full thickness of an ice *stream*. These are regions of an ice sheet with very rapidly moving ice. Ice loss from ice streams may have a larger and more immediate impact on sea level than other regions in Greenland and Antarctica. However, I do not actually know whether this is the first core drill ed through an ice stream, but I'm assuming that was the article's intent.