'Doomsday Glacier' is teetering even closer to disaster than scientists thought, new seafloor map shows

It seems like the current global spate of forest fires, droughts, volcanic activity, heat waves, coral reef deaths, ice sheet melting, related extinctions are more intense and in greater number than occurred in the recent, (200 - 300 year), past. Human activity may have markedly exacerbated a natural on-going process but is not the sole cause. To me, such events may be a precursor to a natural cycle of climate change akin to the Eocene Epoch, albeit with considerable assistance from humanity. Any comments, data, ideas, opinions, references are solicited.
 

COLGeek

Moderator
It seems like the current global spate of forest fires, droughts, volcanic activity, heat waves, coral reef deaths, ice sheet melting, related extinctions are more intense and in greater number than occurred in the recent, (200 - 300 year), past. Human activity may have markedly exacerbated a natural on-going process but is not the sole cause. To me, such events may be a precursor to a natural cycle of climate change akin to the Eocene Epoch, albeit with considerable assistance from humanity. Any comments, data, ideas, opinions, references are solicited.
As noted, whether part of some long term natural cycle or not, human activity has certainly exacerbated the situation. There can be little doubt that we need to be better stewards of our environment.

Making money is fine, as long as we can drink the water, breath the air, and not cook our planet as a result. Else, what is the point?
 
  • Like
Reactions: sam85geo
Sep 11, 2022
97
26
110
Visit site
As noted, whether part of some long term natural cycle or not, human activity has certainly exacerbated the situation. There can be little doubt that we need to be better stewards of our environment.

Making money is fine, as long as we can drink the water, breath the air, and not cook our planet as a result. Else, what is the point?
Reasonable concerns, and environmental pollution has always been a concern for conservationists. Sadly, these concerns have been hijacked by special interests for profit and power.
What we need is a moratorium on climate change hysteria. Ten years minimum, so the chicken littles can calm down and become receptive to actual science.
Giving them yesterday's article "News flash: There is no climate change emergency!" in American Thinker to read would be a good start.
 

COLGeek

Moderator
Reasonable concerns, and environmental pollution has always been a concern for conservationists. Sadly, these concerns have been hijacked by special interests for profit and power.
What we need is a moratorium on climate change hysteria. Ten years minimum, so the chicken littles can calm down and become receptive to actual science.
Giving them yesterday's article "News flash: There is no climate change emergency!" in American Thinker to read would be a good start.
No exactly an unbiased source, my friend. I would suggest a grain of salt here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sam85geo
Sep 11, 2022
97
26
110
Visit site
No exactly an unbiased source, my friend. I would suggest a grain of salt here.
What is an "unbiased source"? The mainstream publications that form part of the technocratic-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned about? We ignored his warning and are now paying the price, while taxpayer-funded scientists with an incentive to lie and exaggerate, their snouts digging ever deeper into the trough, bleed us dry.

By comparison, American Thinker and other worthy publications and blogs (I like judithcurry.com and wattsupwiththat.com) operate on a shoe-string budget, barely managing to make ends meet or as a labor of love. These plucky Davids every day stand up to Goliaths ... long may they continue.
 

COLGeek

Moderator
What is an "unbiased source"? The mainstream publications that form part of the technocratic-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned about? We ignored his warning and are now paying the price, while taxpayer-funded scientists with an incentive to lie and exaggerate, their snouts digging ever deeper into the trough, bleed us dry.

By comparison, American Thinker and other worthy publications and blogs (I like judithcurry.com and wattsupwiththat.com) operate on a shoe-string budget, barely managing to make ends meet or as a labor of love. These plucky Davids every day stand up to Goliaths ... long may they continue.
These sources are hardly objective.

Let's agree to disagree and stick to the topic at hand, vice a discussion about the media.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sam85geo
Sep 11, 2022
97
26
110
Visit site
These sources are hardly objective.

Let's agree to disagree and stick to the topic at hand, vice a discussion about the media.
You can't impugn my sources as biased or "hardly objective" (without justification) and not expect pushback.

It's not a good look when you do that in any case. If the article in American Thinker contained factual errors, you could point to them. But there are no errors, these are very basic facts that are easily checked.

For example, point 5 in the Global Climate Emergency Group's declaration: "Global warming has not increased natural disasters. There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, there is ample evidence that CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly."

Just yesterday, this article This should be the absolute peak of hurricane season—but it’s dead quiet out there confirmed the point about hurricanes.

A lot of people consume only mainstream news sources that give a distorted, alarmist picture of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change (CAGC). They never leave this disinformation bubble. Consequently they are easy prey for unscrupulous manipulators and predatory profiteers.
 
While it is hard to make high confidence short-term statistical arguments using data on something as chaotic as the weather, it is easy to make statistical arguments about economic data that is tracked intensely and tabulated every which way. So, I am not impressed with the idea that the "green" solutions are worse than the disease they are intended to address.

The information I put the most trust in comes from geology and paleontology. I think that it is pretty clear that the Earth's climate is very much dependent on the atmospheric CO2 concentration. So, I tend to believe the general gist of the predictions, but don't have much faith in the numerical details for temperatures as a function of time, or the detailed effects on specific changes to climate in specific locations. And, I see that, without human effects, our planet managed to increase its sea level by 25 feet more during the last interglacial warm period (~120,000 years ago) compared to where it is, today.

So, I don't think we have a prayer of a chance to stop sea level rise from inundating coastal cities at some point in our future. but I don't see us turning our planet into an atmospheric hell like what is on Venus, either.

What we can expect is that our continuing population increase plus some pretty obvious climate changes are going to seriously disrupt our technology-dependent societies, and I expect the world situation will get quite nasty. Mass migrations are already occurring just due to the population pressures, and they are creating wars, which are creating famines in small areas, already. I do believe that climate-forced mass migrations have a serious potential to create a dystopian society as bad as we have seen in Hollywood fiction, without any happy endings.

By the time the situation has become too obvious for anybody to still ignore, we will have lost all ability to do anything to stop it. So, I am a firm supporter of doing the sensible things that can mitigate as much as possible in the time we have left. But, much of what is being pushed seems to be poorly though-out and is too often being hijacked for supporting pre-existing agendas. I fear we are going to pay a heavy price for our collective lack of objective assessment capabilities.
 
Sep 11, 2022
97
26
110
Visit site
I do believe that climate-forced mass migrations have a serious potential to create a dystopian society as bad as we have seen in Hollywood fiction, without any happy endings.
Yes, that is what they keep hammering and hammering and hammering into our heads. You can sell any story if you repeat it often enough on all the airwaves, in "social media", in print, in classrooms ...

However, the one-dimensional notion of "more atmospheric CO2 --> more climate-driven migration" is laughably and crudely simplistic -- and wrong. Most people will accept, sight unseen, that man-made climate change has led to more flooding, forest fires, tornados, hurricanes ... and therefore more human suffering and dislocation.

In fact, this graph here shows the opposite to be true: with a single exception in the "oughts", every decade since the 1920s has seen a decline in the number of people killed by natural disasters worldwide.


Yes, millions in the Third World have packed their suitcases and are en route, or will be soon, to the First World. But they are not "climate refugees". Nor are they the poorest of the poor. They are middle class by the standards of their societies. However, having had their standard of living raised in the past few decades (largely by the expansion of global trade) they now want to enjoy the same affluence and comfort they see on their smartphones in the soap operas of European and U.S. television.

They know what they want, and they want it now. "Climate" has nothing to do with it.
 

Latest posts