I'm reminded of a quote from Mark Twain, "Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."
- Status
While "arguing with stupid people" is futile if the goal is to change their minds, the real purpose for challenging stupid statements by seemingly stupid people is to keep them from convincing others to do stupid things.
And, we also need to realize that the people actually making those "stupid" statements may not actually be stupid, themselves. They may be quite clever and malevolent, trying to take advantage of people who can be manipulated by some psychological tactics that are well known to propagandists, dictatorial rulers and Internet scammers.
The U.S. Internet, and most of the allied "Western World" Internet, is wide open to fake accounts created by foreign operators (governmental and NGO) that are trying to create confusion and outrage in our populations. It is no secret why the governments of places like Russia, China, Iran, North Korea tightly control what their citizens are allowed to see on the Internet, because they understand how to use it destructively and don't want to be vulnerable to those tactics.
While it is often true that "the truth hurts", lies are pretty much universally intended to hurt. And it is a lot easier to tell a convenient lie than it is to figure out the truth.
And, we also need to realize that the people actually making those "stupid" statements may not actually be stupid, themselves. They may be quite clever and malevolent, trying to take advantage of people who can be manipulated by some psychological tactics that are well known to propagandists, dictatorial rulers and Internet scammers.
The U.S. Internet, and most of the allied "Western World" Internet, is wide open to fake accounts created by foreign operators (governmental and NGO) that are trying to create confusion and outrage in our populations. It is no secret why the governments of places like Russia, China, Iran, North Korea tightly control what their citizens are allowed to see on the Internet, because they understand how to use it destructively and don't want to be vulnerable to those tactics.
While it is often true that "the truth hurts", lies are pretty much universally intended to hurt. And it is a lot easier to tell a convenient lie than it is to figure out the truth.
It's surprising how often the truth would be so much more beneficial to the one seeking gain. I had a county official ones tell me that my competitor would "rather climb a tall tree and tell a lie than stand on the ground and tell the truth."
Lies are meant for gain, often financially or socially. Ideology can rationalize half-lies for "the greater good". I abandoned a science forum website that elected to not allow a thread on Covid science and the hard facts scientists were discovering. No doubt the site leader's suppression thought it was for the public good.
The "media science", I'll call it, does this regularly. But it's not a simple challenge. The Tampa Bay surge was given to us be meteorologists on every channel, no doubt. The estimate was between 10 and 15 feet for Tampa Bay, less to the north and south. The actual surge for Tampa Bay was greater than a negative 5 feet. The reason the sea level fell is obvious since the eye was south of Tampa Bay so the winds were from the east, not west. The media should have presented this obvious science at the same time push the warning to get those citizens out given the extremely high winds, rain and possible tornados.
Last edited:
Don't savage people so arrogantly, calling them all so "stupid!" for seeing things differently. Calling people so "stupid" is a stupidly savaging word that draws fire....!!!! Try it in person on them ("You are too stupid for words")! Take apart what they said or have to say piece by piece and leave the rest to the audience. Don't take them 'personally' apart or you may find yourself in pieces from the encounter! Life competes, which is distinctly part of what life means in the rise and fall!
----------------------------------
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; otherwise they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle," -- Edmund Burke, 'Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents'.
----------------------------------
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; otherwise they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle," -- Edmund Burke, 'Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents'.
Last edited:
Helio, The warnings for tidal surge are intended to be warnings, not necessarily precise predictions for each area. Especially in the situation where a hurricane is approaching a coastline, exactly where the surge will be positive and where it will be negative is a matter of exactly where the eye is when it crosses the coastline. That isn't precisely predictable until the last minute. But, you can't wait for the eyewall to hit land before you decide whether or not to evacuate. So, there is a probabilistic aspect to the warning maps.
That said, NOAA probably would rather over-predict than under-predict. And the popular media will always hype the worst numbers. People do realize that, and unfortunately it leads some to decide to "ride out" what ends up being fatal conditions.
As a risk analyst, I would prefer to see best estimates and uncertainty bounds for the predictions. But, most of the public is not ready for that level of information.
From what google tells me "Highest known storm surge: 5-6 feet in various spots in southwest Florida include Naples and Fort Myers. This is likely underestimated and numbers are likely higher in Sarasota or Charlotte Counties."
The highest surge would probably have been where the southern edge of the eye wall hit land, and that had sustained winds over 100 mph. So the actual surge level there may never be accurately known.
That said, NOAA probably would rather over-predict than under-predict. And the popular media will always hype the worst numbers. People do realize that, and unfortunately it leads some to decide to "ride out" what ends up being fatal conditions.
As a risk analyst, I would prefer to see best estimates and uncertainty bounds for the predictions. But, most of the public is not ready for that level of information.
From what google tells me "Highest known storm surge: 5-6 feet in various spots in southwest Florida include Naples and Fort Myers. This is likely underestimated and numbers are likely higher in Sarasota or Charlotte Counties."
The highest surge would probably have been where the southern edge of the eye wall hit land, and that had sustained winds over 100 mph. So the actual surge level there may never be accurately known.
That's what I think should happen and for everyone's sake. More understandable science for the public is best, IMO.
The lack of this will leave some, less informed, assuming science is incompetent in their forecasting. This is easily avoidable with more open presentations. As I said, the risks due to winds, flooding and tornadoes justifies the warnings without the erroneous surge forecast. Of course, this adjustment to the forecast would only be when there is some reasonable chance the eye would indeed be south of the area, which would not be presented in the earlier forecasts. Both the surges and anti-surges can be presented, which IMO, would only make the science look more honest, and without compromising the risks.
Yes, I think that may be close to the estimates, though rainfall is in addition to the surge amount.
Storm surges are predicted for the NHC by the Surge Guidance System portion of the Advanced Circulation Model, "ADCIRC", which is run four times a day on a supercomputer at Louisiana State University using input from the Global Forecast System.
Storm Surge prediction is difficult becasue it is the sloshing of water in a bathtub with an uneven, changing bottom and there are dunes that move around than can block or allow flow into the area. In the case of Milton, the predictions were based on a model developed prior to Helene changing things. In the case of Katrina a 130 mph landfall equated to a US record 27 foot surge, even though the physics says Katrina pressures and winds would limit it to a maximum of 12 feet. Parcels of water give up their energy to other parcels is what happens.
There is error in these forecasts because of the sensitivity to the location the eye will hit. The six hour delay between forecasts is a problem, but the computer takes a long time to do a run. The GFS model is notoriously inaccurate for hurricanes because the mesh is too large. HWRF and HMON and HAFS have smaller meshes but are not used in the Surge Guidance System for some reason.
cera.coastalrisk.live
Storm Surge prediction is difficult becasue it is the sloshing of water in a bathtub with an uneven, changing bottom and there are dunes that move around than can block or allow flow into the area. In the case of Milton, the predictions were based on a model developed prior to Helene changing things. In the case of Katrina a 130 mph landfall equated to a US record 27 foot surge, even though the physics says Katrina pressures and winds would limit it to a maximum of 12 feet. Parcels of water give up their energy to other parcels is what happens.
There is error in these forecasts because of the sensitivity to the location the eye will hit. The six hour delay between forecasts is a problem, but the computer takes a long time to do a run. The GFS model is notoriously inaccurate for hurricanes because the mesh is too large. HWRF and HMON and HAFS have smaller meshes but are not used in the Surge Guidance System for some reason.
CERA - Coastal Emergency Risks Assessment
A real-time, event-triggered storm surge guidance system for the coastal regions of the U.S.
cera.coastalrisk.live
Last edited:
If climate change is real, the best thing we can do is keep our population from growing until technology catches up to keep us from decimating the planet more. But the author of this article almost certainly supported open borders. Hmmm
The Earth is still in a 2.56 million-year ice age named the Quaternary Glaciation in a cold Interglacial Period that alternates with very cold Glacial Periods. The ice age won't end until there is no natural ice on the Earth.
en.wikipedia.org
Quaternary glaciation - Wikipedia
The UN/WMO redefined the word "Climate" to mean 30 years worth of weather instead of the thousands to millions of years the word "Climate" used to mean, so of course like the weather it is always changing.
Well that sounds more like politics than science!
Did they come up with a new word for longer periods of "weather"?
scvblwxq,Thanks for posting that link - it is really nice explanation of what we currently think about past climates.
For those who do not read to the end, here is the link's current assessment of where our climate could be going:
"Based on past estimates for interglacial durations of about 10,000 years, in the 1970s there was some concern that the next glacial period would be imminent. However, slight changes in the eccentricity of Earth's orbit around the Sun suggest a lengthy interglacial period lasting about another 50,000 years.[51] Other models, based on periodic variations in solar output, give a different projection of the start of the next glacial period at around 10,000 years from now.[52] Additionally, human impact is now seen as possibly extending what would already be an unusually long warm period. Projection of the timeline for the next glacial maximum depend crucially on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Models assuming increased CO2 levels at 750 parts per million (ppm; current levels are at 417 ppm[53]) have estimated the persistence of the current interglacial period for another 50,000 years.[54] However, more recent studies concluded that the amount of heat trapping gases emitted into Earth's oceans and atmosphere will prevent the next glacial (ice age), which otherwise would begin in around 50,000 years, and likely more glacial cycles.[55][56]"
For those who do not read to the end, here is the link's current assessment of where our climate could be going:
"Based on past estimates for interglacial durations of about 10,000 years, in the 1970s there was some concern that the next glacial period would be imminent. However, slight changes in the eccentricity of Earth's orbit around the Sun suggest a lengthy interglacial period lasting about another 50,000 years.[51] Other models, based on periodic variations in solar output, give a different projection of the start of the next glacial period at around 10,000 years from now.[52] Additionally, human impact is now seen as possibly extending what would already be an unusually long warm period. Projection of the timeline for the next glacial maximum depend crucially on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Models assuming increased CO2 levels at 750 parts per million (ppm; current levels are at 417 ppm[53]) have estimated the persistence of the current interglacial period for another 50,000 years.[54] However, more recent studies concluded that the amount of heat trapping gases emitted into Earth's oceans and atmosphere will prevent the next glacial (ice age), which otherwise would begin in around 50,000 years, and likely more glacial cycles.[55][56]"
And yet you make assertion overwhelming evidence for climate change but don't cite or produce ANYTHING other than computer models whose predictions have been seriously wrong for decades.
True. However, experience has shown that doing so with those already "convinced" matters not. Just doesn't make a difference in this context.
Meaningful dialogue is difficult, if not impossible, in these scenarios. Especially when factually incorrect word salad is offered in response.
Perspective, understanding, open-mindedness, and a capacity to cut through rhetoric is lacking.
Have a great day.
This is easy. The Earth's climate in not changing. Its the weather that changes just like it has from the very beginning. Sometimes it's hot, sometimes its cold, sometimes it rains and sometimes it doesn't. Global averages are meaningless.
At its core the dogma of climate change is a human construct whose ultimate purpose is to empower and enrich the elite and control the masses. Supposedly, the root cause of "human induced climate change" is the rise in the concentration of C02 in Earth's atmosphere that stems from the use of carbon based fuels like wood, coal, natural gas, and (horror of horrors) the petroleum derivatives diesel and gasoline.
At present the atmospheric concentration of CO2 stands at 0.04%. Data taken in 2023 shows that global carbon emissions went up by 1.9%: (taken from WikiPedia) "In 2023, global GHG emissions reached 53.0 GtCO2eq (without Land Use, land Use Change and Forestry). The 2023 data represent the highest level recorded and experienced an increase of 1.9% or 994 MtCO2eq compared to the levels in 2022." So in 12 months emissions rose by a whopping 1.9% and yet the percentage of atmospheric CO2 has shown no substantial increase. Additionally, alarmists talk about "tipping points," but they have no idea if those points actually exist or what level of CO2 concentration might trigger them.
It is not as easy as dismissing the term "climate" completely. That is a fail that everybody can understand. When there are 2 mile thick ice sheets, that isn't just "weather" that changes in a day or week or even a season, it takes thousands of years before you get to no ice sheets.
Or, maybe you don't believe geologists, either?
As for your accounting of greenhouse gas emissions and concentrations. Obviously, an increase in annual emission rate of x% is not going to result in an increase in the total atmospheric concentration by the same x%.
As for "tipping points" clearly, the past climate conditions have changed comparatively abruptly, compared to the slow changes in solar energy input to the northern hemisphere. That is thought to be due to changes in circulation patterns, but is not well understood.
See the link already posted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation for a pretty clear description of how things have changed over the last few million years, why we think they changed, and what we are thinking about the future climate.
Or, maybe you don't believe geologists, either?
As for your accounting of greenhouse gas emissions and concentrations. Obviously, an increase in annual emission rate of x% is not going to result in an increase in the total atmospheric concentration by the same x%.
As for "tipping points" clearly, the past climate conditions have changed comparatively abruptly, compared to the slow changes in solar energy input to the northern hemisphere. That is thought to be due to changes in circulation patterns, but is not well understood.
See the link already posted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation for a pretty clear description of how things have changed over the last few million years, why we think they changed, and what we are thinking about the future climate.
The climate debate is too often a dichotomy -- for or against. This is a poor approach to it since it is a scientific topic. Science is improving its modeling to better predict the degree of change that comes from the change in variables. The human contribution appears to be significant but just how much it has raised the net temperature is very unclear, yet less unclear from several decades ago due to the great work by honest scientists and improved computer power.
IMO, the planet is warming and CO2 is one reason for that. But the question, restating the above, is by how much does CO2 do this?
Look at the graph from post #36. See anything "funny" (Asimov take)? [Is there a good reason for the temporal difference?]
IMO, the planet is warming and CO2 is one reason for that. But the question, restating the above, is by how much does CO2 do this?
Look at the graph from post #36. See anything "funny" (Asimov take)? [Is there a good reason for the temporal difference?]
Yes, atmospheric concentration of CO2 seems to lag a bit, compared to temperature.
Many things have been shown to release more CO2 when the Earth warms after an period of glaciation. So, there does seem to be a cause-effect relationship in the time frame of interglacial periods.
But, on the other hand, if you look at the long-term average atmospheric CO2 concentration over many tens of millions of years, the warmest periods do seem to correlate pretty well with the highest CO2 concentrations.
So, my take on it is that CO2 definitely has some causal effects on very long term global temperature averages, but there are other effects that are more important in the shorter terms of tens of thousands of years that can decrease CO2 and temperature. Circulation patterns in the atmosphere and oceans seem to be big drivers for climate variations.
For example, the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation and a similar circulation in the Pacific are important determinates for the temperatures on land areas in the northern hemisphere. And, ocean bottom sediment cores indicate that the AMOC tends to get stronger and weaker. When it is weak, the northern land areas around the Atlantic Ocean get colder. It seems to be weakening, now, but that is being blamed on ocean heating and ice cap melting. In addition, the "atmospheric rivers" that create large seasonal rainfall events are shifting northward and dumping more precipitation at higher latitudes than in recent history. Which leads me to wonder if the combination could produce enough winter snowfall to last longer into the summer and start reflecting more of the solar energy back into space, further cooling the northern hemisphere - which is already in a decreasing solar energy input trend due to the precession of the Earth's orbit around the Sun putting the perihelion later and later compared to the winter solstice, so making winters colder and last longer in the northern hemisphere. Could this produce a "snow blitz" beginning to a new ice age? Would it be a long-term, true reglaciation, or another "mini ice age"? Will it even happen? Stay tuned, but don't bet the ranch on any particular outcome. We are still trying to better understand these things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_meridional_overturning_circulation
Many things have been shown to release more CO2 when the Earth warms after an period of glaciation. So, there does seem to be a cause-effect relationship in the time frame of interglacial periods.
But, on the other hand, if you look at the long-term average atmospheric CO2 concentration over many tens of millions of years, the warmest periods do seem to correlate pretty well with the highest CO2 concentrations.
So, my take on it is that CO2 definitely has some causal effects on very long term global temperature averages, but there are other effects that are more important in the shorter terms of tens of thousands of years that can decrease CO2 and temperature. Circulation patterns in the atmosphere and oceans seem to be big drivers for climate variations.
For example, the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation and a similar circulation in the Pacific are important determinates for the temperatures on land areas in the northern hemisphere. And, ocean bottom sediment cores indicate that the AMOC tends to get stronger and weaker. When it is weak, the northern land areas around the Atlantic Ocean get colder. It seems to be weakening, now, but that is being blamed on ocean heating and ice cap melting. In addition, the "atmospheric rivers" that create large seasonal rainfall events are shifting northward and dumping more precipitation at higher latitudes than in recent history. Which leads me to wonder if the combination could produce enough winter snowfall to last longer into the summer and start reflecting more of the solar energy back into space, further cooling the northern hemisphere - which is already in a decreasing solar energy input trend due to the precession of the Earth's orbit around the Sun putting the perihelion later and later compared to the winter solstice, so making winters colder and last longer in the northern hemisphere. Could this produce a "snow blitz" beginning to a new ice age? Would it be a long-term, true reglaciation, or another "mini ice age"? Will it even happen? Stay tuned, but don't bet the ranch on any particular outcome. We are still trying to better understand these things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_meridional_overturning_circulation
But even these earlier cycles don't show CO2 increase as causal to temperature increase. Or am I wrong?
I'm not saying the increase by CO2 by humanity isn't a factor -- I think it is a factor -- but I am showing how some presentations of climate science need greater scrutiny for the more accurate story.
Agreed.
Yes. And our models are still a bit limited in their predictive powers. I am fairly sure the AMOC, for instance, is not yet incorporated in climate models.
Helio, What I am saying about CO2 having a causal effect on warming is based on looking at the CO2 concentrations for hundreds of millions of years. I can't quickly find the graph I am thinking about, but here is a result from a quick Google search https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2...rbon-dioxide-offers-little-comfort-for-today/ which contains this graph for the last 66 million years.
https://sotp.nyc3.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/CO2-curve2-768x371.png
I would like it to have a line graph for temperature, but it uses color bands. Still, I think that it makes the point that the long-term climate is hotter with more CO2 in the atmosphere. Our last ice ages, plus their interglacial warm periods over the last 2.6 million years are shown in that cold blue band on the right. Remember the warm periods are only about 10% of that time.
But, also note that the CO2 concentration has previously been as high as 1600 ppm, and the Earth did not turn into Venus. However, sea level then was about 400 feet higher then than it is today. And that is not a trivial problem for humans. Or for other creatures that are trying to live within isolated islands of habit surrounded by humans that they cannot migrate through to follow the changing climatic conditions that they evolved with and adapted to .
https://sotp.nyc3.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/CO2-curve2-768x371.png
I would like it to have a line graph for temperature, but it uses color bands. Still, I think that it makes the point that the long-term climate is hotter with more CO2 in the atmosphere. Our last ice ages, plus their interglacial warm periods over the last 2.6 million years are shown in that cold blue band on the right. Remember the warm periods are only about 10% of that time.
But, also note that the CO2 concentration has previously been as high as 1600 ppm, and the Earth did not turn into Venus. However, sea level then was about 400 feet higher then than it is today. And that is not a trivial problem for humans. Or for other creatures that are trying to live within isolated islands of habit surrounded by humans that they cannot migrate through to follow the changing climatic conditions that they evolved with and adapted to .
Yes. Thanks. That graph illustrates the possible difference between association and causation. Although higher temperatures are found, per the graph, with higher CO2 levels, it doesn't answer the question of which is the chicken and which is the egg. Did higher temperatures release greater amounts of CO2? Most would say yes, but then there is the lag issue, which I thought is in the longer period studies, but perhaps not.
It's not so much the equation that we'd like to see for this, but how some people have presented science to the public. A clear and insightful account is what we need to see, warts and all.
The actual system of chemicals transported around the planet, into and out of the ground by subduction, volcanism, etc, is quite complicated and involves geology such as mountain uplifting a exposed rock weathering, bog an lake formations, positions of continents affecting flow of air and seawater, etc. etc. etc.
We really can't model it on a computer in anything more than a very simplified way, because we don't even have complete records of everything that matters going back for hundreds of millions of years.
It is very likely that there are many cause-effect relationships between CO2 and global temperatures and some work in one direction and others work in the opposite direction. Other factors, such as the rise of Central America out of the sea to separate the Atlantic and Pacific circulation patterns, plus a lot of newly exposed rock to weather in multiple parts of the globe, tipped the balance towards cold about 3 million years ago. But, the temperatures still sputtered back to "warmer" about every 50,000 years until about 900,000 years ago, when the interglacial periods started coming only about 100,000 years.
Because CO2 clearly has a warming effect when it is in the atmosphere, it obviously has some effects on the net results of all of these processes. But, we don't seem to be able to model how the weather changes produce the ice ages with enough accuracy to backcast the timing of the things that the geological record seems to indicate. So, I don't have much confidence that we can forecast climate very accurately into the future, right now.
With some people looking at any short-term cooling, or even less warming than predicted, as a reason to disregard the whole idea that the long-term net effect is warming, it seems that those people are just grasping at straws to retain their beliefs in what they want to be true.
On the other hand, the people who are worried that we are close to turning Earth into Venus need to look at what the CO2 concentration has been in the distant past.
My personal impression is that Earth's atmosphere is somewhat depleted in CO2, or at least was until we doubled its concentration with fossil fuel burning. That is one of the main reasons for the most recent cycle of ice ages. The Earth would probably still be a nice place to live at around 500 ppm, but the sea level rise would (will?) be trouble for our infrastructure and the changes in location of nice climates will force migrations that are likely to cause wars. But, so would another ice age.
We really can't expect the Earth's climate to just magically stabilize for us because we can see how it has kept changing in the past. And, we really don't know enough to actually control the climate with engineering, either. That would require models much better than we have, so far.
But, we can try to not upset the climate so much that it makes changes more rapidly. And that is where the arguments come in - how much of the current warming is caused by human activities? And, if it looks like it is naturally going to get hotter or colder than we like, should we (could we) do something to "guide" the climate in our preferred direction? That kind of environmental modification is "what humans do" in most other aspects of our environment, so it is normal to think that way. But, if we get it wrong and screw it up, we could make things worse, instead of better for ourselves.
We really can't model it on a computer in anything more than a very simplified way, because we don't even have complete records of everything that matters going back for hundreds of millions of years.
It is very likely that there are many cause-effect relationships between CO2 and global temperatures and some work in one direction and others work in the opposite direction. Other factors, such as the rise of Central America out of the sea to separate the Atlantic and Pacific circulation patterns, plus a lot of newly exposed rock to weather in multiple parts of the globe, tipped the balance towards cold about 3 million years ago. But, the temperatures still sputtered back to "warmer" about every 50,000 years until about 900,000 years ago, when the interglacial periods started coming only about 100,000 years.
Because CO2 clearly has a warming effect when it is in the atmosphere, it obviously has some effects on the net results of all of these processes. But, we don't seem to be able to model how the weather changes produce the ice ages with enough accuracy to backcast the timing of the things that the geological record seems to indicate. So, I don't have much confidence that we can forecast climate very accurately into the future, right now.
With some people looking at any short-term cooling, or even less warming than predicted, as a reason to disregard the whole idea that the long-term net effect is warming, it seems that those people are just grasping at straws to retain their beliefs in what they want to be true.
On the other hand, the people who are worried that we are close to turning Earth into Venus need to look at what the CO2 concentration has been in the distant past.
My personal impression is that Earth's atmosphere is somewhat depleted in CO2, or at least was until we doubled its concentration with fossil fuel burning. That is one of the main reasons for the most recent cycle of ice ages. The Earth would probably still be a nice place to live at around 500 ppm, but the sea level rise would (will?) be trouble for our infrastructure and the changes in location of nice climates will force migrations that are likely to cause wars. But, so would another ice age.
We really can't expect the Earth's climate to just magically stabilize for us because we can see how it has kept changing in the past. And, we really don't know enough to actually control the climate with engineering, either. That would require models much better than we have, so far.
But, we can try to not upset the climate so much that it makes changes more rapidly. And that is where the arguments come in - how much of the current warming is caused by human activities? And, if it looks like it is naturally going to get hotter or colder than we like, should we (could we) do something to "guide" the climate in our preferred direction? That kind of environmental modification is "what humans do" in most other aspects of our environment, so it is normal to think that way. But, if we get it wrong and screw it up, we could make things worse, instead of better for ourselves.
A couple of satellite data sets that revealed to me how serious global warming are the Grace + Grace FO ice mass changes for Greenland and Antarctica - (we are losing 60 tons of ice per year for every person on the planet) -
Another shows sea level rise based on satellite observation, including the counter-intuitive fall of sea level closest to where the ice is melting - caused by the reduced local gravitational pull from reduced local ice mass -
I find the extent of eager willingness to distrust the world's leading science agencies and the consistent advice they have been giving - about the disruption of an exceptional period of climate stability that was better for homo sapiens than anything that has gone before and arguably made reliable agriculture and therefore civilisation possible - deeply disturbing.
Another shows sea level rise based on satellite observation, including the counter-intuitive fall of sea level closest to where the ice is melting - caused by the reduced local gravitational pull from reduced local ice mass -
I find the extent of eager willingness to distrust the world's leading science agencies and the consistent advice they have been giving - about the disruption of an exceptional period of climate stability that was better for homo sapiens than anything that has gone before and arguably made reliable agriculture and therefore civilisation possible - deeply disturbing.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
-
-
Just a couple of questions please about just how far back we can model.- Started by Starstruck
- Replies: 12
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram