Discussion in 'World Events' started by Saint, Feb 23, 2020.
And if you don't want to answer the question, obfuscate.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Rowdy Roddy Piper had an even better way of saying it.
We are, of course - still, just as you were informed the last few times you posted that innuendo.
It's old news. It's standard procedure, and has been for decades, in AGW research. It's informative, but can only guide, because the current situation has no precedent.
The central issue with AGW is that the current and continuing rate of CO2 boost and consequent climate change, thawing, ocean acid increase, provocation of feedback response, etc etc, is about ten times faster than anything in the geological record except large meteor strikes - and those were one-offs, not continuing pressures. So regardless of what happened in the past we have to rely on basic principles, modeling, theory, and so forth, in this new and unprecedented situation. What happened over thousands of years in the past in the course of natural orbital cycles and so forth is not likely to be replicated in the tens or hundreds of years this much stronger anthropogenic pressure will be taking effect. Methane is likely to build up in the atmosphere, for example (it already is), rather than being broken down as it is released, because it is being released faster than the breakdown cycles can handle and is likely to continue so - that's a feedback the much slower changes of the past almost certainly did not incorporate. We have to incorporate it.
And when we do, we face the possibility - the likelihood - that we are doing ourselves serious harm. We're setting ourselves up for disaster.
As before: done. We have a problem, namely that we are and have been dumping our waste CO2 into the atmosphere without considering the consequences, and now they are catching up with us.
And so we are starting there.
It seems most likely that you have not looked at the 405kyr data.
If your ignorance gives you comfort..................................................that's your choice.
Once again, we'd like to have a few hundred thousand years to adapt to climate change as opposed to the decades we will have with current CO2 emission levels.
You should stand in front of a mirror and say that 100 times. No one else here is taking comfort in their ignorance, rather they're making the point that multiple independent lines of investigation are all converging on the urgent need to do something right now, and if we don't do it now then things will become very uncomfortable, and the action required later will only become increasingly more draconian. Ignorance and comfort are two mutually exclusive states of being here.
If you want to understand earth's climate variability:
You must look beyond the holocene and CO2
405krrs climate shifts for dummies:
every 405kyrs the earth is wetter
at 202.5kyrs the earth is dryer
the earth was wetter 405kyrs ago
as per milankovitch cycles
mis 11 most closely matches the holocene
It seems that many here only want to discuss CO2 and the holocene
whereas, I am much more interested in the climate.
Even if I haven't, scientists have and don't see it as a threat as they do the current climate change problems, you know, the ones you keep ignoring.
The irony of that statement is staggering, but that's the choice you made, evidently.
If you want to discuss general climate science that's fine, but that wasn't the intended subject of this thread. The intention of this thread was to discuss man-made global warming in the present era and whether it can be reversed. The evidence from multiple lines of research that the planet is getting unnaturally hotter due to human activity is already very powerful and only gaining in confidence, certainty and precision as time goes on. How does the study of Earth's historic climates negate our understanding and the associated predictability of current trends? Once again, do you think it's just a coincidence that present models accurately hindcast the past 100 years of data?
Internet forum guidelines for dummies:
If you want to discuss a certain topic, start a thread.
See the internet forum guidelines for dummies. This thread is about the man made global warming crisis. If you wish to discuss the climate, then start your own thread, I'm sure we'll all come racing over to read what you have to say on the topic. Or not.
Well, of course. But this is Sculptor. He doesn't discuss things, he snipes at other posters. It would be harder to do that from his own thread.
This thread is titled:
"Will global warming be reversed by human's effort?"
And, the answer is:
Not if we cannot control the orbits of the other planets and change the Milankovitch cycles.
"Scientists drilling deep into ancient rocks in the Arizona desert say they have documented a gradual shift in Earth’s orbit that repeats regularly every 405,000 years, playing a role in natural climate swings. Astrophysicists have long hypothesized that the cycle exists based on calculations of celestial mechanics, but the authors of the new research have found the first verifiable physical evidence. They showed that the cycle has been stable for hundreds of millions of years, from before the rise of dinosaurs, and is still active today.
Scientists have for decades posited that Earth’s orbit around the sun goes from nearly circular to about 5 percent elliptical, and back again every 405,000 years. The shift is believed to result from a complex interplay with the gravitational influences of Venus and Jupiter, along with other bodies in the Solar System as they all whirl around the Sun like a set of gyrating hula-hoops, sometimes closer to one another, sometimes further. Astrophysicists believe the mathematical calculation of the cycle is reliable back to around 50 million years, but after that, the problem gets too complex, because too many shifting motions are at play.
Kent and Olsen have long argued that the climate changes displayed in the New York-New Jersey rocks were controlled by the 405,000-year cycle. However, there are no volcanic ash layers there to provide precise dates. But those cores do contain polarity reversals similar to those spotted in Arizona. By combining the two sets of data, the team showed that both sites developed at the same time, and that the 405,000-year interval indeed exerts a kind of master control over climate swings.
Linda Hinnov, a professor at George Mason University who studies the deep past, said the new study lends support to previous studies by others that claim to have observed signs of the 405,000-year cycle even further back, before 250 million years ago."
The question arises:
Just how much will this 405kyr cycle effect this interglacial's climate?
We have a pretty good idea what the climate was like 405kyrs ago...........
You may have reading comprehension issues, I didn't state the title, I said what the thread was about. Try paying attention.
Lol! No, that isn't the answer.
Ergo, you're clueless.
Since those things are not causing this warming, and CO2 emissions are, then yes, we actually can.
"Doctor, I'm short of breath, I feel like shit all the time, and I have no stamina - and my chest hurts."
"You have to stop smoking. Here's a group that . . . ."
"No, no, that's ridiculous, doctor. I saw on the Internet that shortness of breath is caused by telomere erosion. And until you compare my genome to the genome of everyone else who has shortness of breath, how can you know anything? It's laughable that you think that smoking has anything to do with my shortness of breath, given how much I like to smoke, and how complex the human genome is."
It seems that the question posed in the title of the thread is not the question you wanted.
It would be prudent for you to start a thread with the question you wanted to see.
Are you sure you understood what I wrote? Or, what anyone wrote?
It would be prudent for you to take a reading comprehension course.
To get back to answering the question -
Yes, we can reverse global warming. The question is - are we willing to?
Since Earth isn't a globe but rather a torus, your assertion is utterly preposterous.
Many reports say the ice in arctic and antarctic is melting away, cause the death of polar bears and penguins.
Why it happened like that?
There is a great deal of information available to answer that question and many others. This is as good a place to start as any.
I'll repost this, as sculptor seems to have ignored it:
You (sculptor) have been going on about "Milankovitch's equations" for pages now, yet have still not provided any. So, for the second (Third? Fifth? Dozenth?) time, why not show us some of these equations--and walk us through them, in plain English.
At the very least, make some sort of effort to show us that you're not just talking out of your ass--better still, try actually responding to a post which is directed specifically at you. For once.
Separate names with a comma.