Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Fweethawt

Humans on the verge of causing Earth’s fastest climate change in 50m years

65 posts in this topic

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/apr/17/humans-on-the-verge-of-causing-earths-fastest-climate-change-in-50m-years

 

A new study published in Nature Communications looks at changes in solar activity and carbon dioxide levels over the past 420 million years. The authors found that on our current path, by mid-century humans will be causing the fastest climate change in approximately 50 million years, and if we burn all available fossil fuels, we’ll cause the fastest change in the entire 420 million year record.

 

926.jpg?w=445&q=20&auto=format&usm=12&fi

 

Changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and in the combined solar and carbon dioxide forcing over the past 420 million years. Illustration: Foster et al. (2017); Nature Communications.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for your support
Buy Ex-C a cup of coffee!
Costs have significantly risen and we need your support! Click the coffee cup to give a one-time donation, or choose one of the recurrent patron options.
Note: All Contributing Patrons enjoy Ex-Christian.net advertisement free.

Obviously fake news and fake science. How can we march back to the '50s if we don't expand our use of fossil fuels? :Duivel7:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fake news. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

50M years?  No asteroid hits in 50M?

 

A direct hit is really fast climate change. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pffftttt everyone knows that the scientists are lying and manipulating data to show warming right?

 

I agree with Jeff, however the last big one was 65m years ago so the 50m year frame may be correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Click bait. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

Click bait. 

 

Yes, you are correct - they do that in science journals. Measly beggars trying to fool us all, but we are smarter! We don't trust these government paid commie nazi's trying to take us back to the stone age.

 

Look more fake news:

 

https://www.nature.com/news/antarctica-s-sleeping-ice-giant-could-wake-soon-1.21808 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Yes, you are correct - they do that in science journals. Measly beggars trying to fool us all, but we are smarter! We don't trust these government paid commie nazi's trying to take us back to the stone age.

 

Look more fake news:

 

https://www.nature.com/news/antarctica-s-sleeping-ice-giant-could-wake-soon-1.21808 

 

 

You mean the science journals where there is obviously serious flaws in the process?  

 

http://www.apa.org/gradpsych/2003/05/peerreview.aspx 

 

 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

 

Those aren't me, those are from different publishers in different fields.  But hey, if there is some large sums of money on the line, why would those people involved not fudge a few numbers if it means lots money coming in? 

 

Look, I am not trying to be offensive, but if what is being pushed in the form of a narrative, even backed up with what is supposed to be evidence does not match what I am seeing, then I know something is not right. Get angry if you want, that is simply the way I see it. You want me to pretend to see something I don't?  I thought that was the place of religion.  Religion requires faith, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you are seeing? Are you still using the "well my Florida area isn't flooded yet so climate change must not be happening" argument? Would it be different if you lived in Australia and saw the bleaching of the coral reef or other areas of the world being dramatically affected by climate change? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, hockeyfan70 said:

What you are seeing? Are you still using the "well my Florida area isn't flooded yet so climate change must not be happening" argument? Would it be different if you lived in Australia and saw the bleaching of the coral reef or other areas of the world being dramatically affected by climate change? 

 

The fact that the shoreline has not seen any change is a major factor with me.  The people who are alarmists were, and have still been, claiming the water is rising, but I have not seen it.  As for the bleaching of the choral reefs, are you not repeating something that has been said?  It is awfully convenient to blame that on GW/CC, that has become the knee-jerk response.  Where is the critical thinking?  There are other factors that can lead to that as well. The one constant that has been shouted from the roof tops and the laptops has been sea level rise and I have not seen it.  When, what I am told, does not line up with what I see, I don't buy it.  If it were any other area, I would think that you would likely have a similar approach, but because it has been made such a screaming point, then it MUST be true.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Pffftttt everyone knows that the scientists are lying and manipulating data to show warming right?

 

I agree with Jeff, however the last big one was 65m years ago so the 50m year frame may be correct?

In the very near future all of earth will unite to halt and even slightly reverse the horrors of climate change. We will permanently lock the climate to exactly how we think it should be only to see that it's now time (after 65M years) for another direct hit from a moderately large space rock. It won't kill everyone.  A small percentage will somehow scrape by for a while before going extinct.  

A few lonely scientists will hold on for a while too before succumbing to depression when they realize the Internet is never coming back, and 98% of the other actual survivors still think it's god's will and he's still in control. 

"Dammit!  Just... DAMMIT!!!" - some surviving climate scientist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Burnedout said:

You want me to pretend to see something I don't? 

 

You can "see" the ice loss in the Arctic. Or is NASA faking the photos of Arctic from space too?

 

You can "see" Aussie Corals bleaching

 

You can "see" Pacific Islands going underwater - slowly to be sure, but Islanders are losing their traditional homes and way of life to sea rise.

 

I don't doubt that you can't 'see' any sea level rise in your location - but you can see effects elsewhere. So do we take multiple data points pointing in the same direction, or your single observance not pointing in the same direction?

 

PS, I should put a disclaimer in here just in case one might think I am a True Believer (TM (C) (R) in global warming: I do agree that some political maneuvering has gone on that has resulted in manipulated reports. I'm not blind or stupid (At least I hope not) However, much like Haeckel’s 'fake' embryo drawings doesn't disprove evolution (Despite cries from fundies to the contrary), so does manipulated data not mean that global warming isn't happening, and that we shouldn't try and reduce our impact on the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Burnedout said:

 

The fact that the shoreline has not seen any change is a major factor with me.  The people who are alarmists were, and have still been, claiming the water is rising, but I have not seen it.  As for the bleaching of the choral reefs, are you not repeating something that has been said?  It is awfully convenient to blame that on GW/CC, that has become the knee-jerk response.  Where is the critical thinking?  There are other factors that can lead to that as well. The one constant that has been shouted from the roof tops and the laptops has been sea level rise and I have not seen it.  When, what I am told, does not line up with what I see, I don't buy it.  If it were any other area, I would think that you would likely have a similar approach, but because it has been made such a screaming point, then it MUST be true.  

97% of climate scientists agree that man-made climate change is real. Most of the 3% are corporate shills paid by energy companies to deny. 

 

I still don't understand how personal witness trumps science in your book. That's like me saying "There isn't a heroin problem in Ohio" because some junkie isn't shooting it up in my house or in my yard.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

97% of climate scientists agree that man-made climate change is real. Most of the 3% are corporate shills paid by energy companies to deny.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPYhDGMFgE4  

 

If this is to be believed at all, there is information about that so-called 97%.  

 

 

 http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/04/the-epic-hypocrisy-of-tom-steyer.php  

If this is to be believed, then how is the "so-called corporate schills paid by the energy companies" any different than the shills who are wanting to lobby for subsidies for their own industries?  The second link there tells of one billionaire hedge fund manager, Tom Steyer, who does the same thing as oil/gas for his green energies.  How is that any different?  Personally, I would like to see the government stop subsidizing both. 

 

Quote

I still don't understand how personal witness trumps science in your book. That's like me saying "There isn't a heroin problem in Ohio" because some junkie isn't shooting it up in my house or in my yard.

 

Not far from the area I live is an island.  That island has had a constant presence on it since 1831.  That was when a fort was built there, Fort Pickens.  The island is a very long and skinny Island.  At some points it is only a matter of a few hundrend yards wide, at some places it is about 2 to 3 miles wide.  On the very western tip of that island is the fort.  The grounds of that fort has not changed.  Sea level is a constant all over the globe.  The Gulf of Mexico is part of the Atlantic.  If sea level is rising, it would affect the sea level of the island.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the positions were reversed...

 

...and LogicalFallacy and HockeyFan70 were the mistrustful, cynical, climate change deniers...

 

...and if BO were the science-accepting, climate change believer who was seeing the sea level steadily rise...

 

...how could he possibly persuade them?

 

 

They'd just disbelieve anything he says, any photos he posted, any data that he cited and any source that he linked to.

 

:shrug:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Burnedout said:

 The grounds of that fort has not changed.  Sea level is a constant all over the globe.  The Gulf of Mexico is part of the Atlantic.  If sea level is rising, it would affect the sea level of the island.  

 

Ahem! http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/globalsl.html 

 

Oh wait that's from NOAA. My bad.

 

Wait... we can find other sources, thank Jebus for non NOAA sources!

 

http://www.johnenglander.net/sea-level-rise-blog/sea-level-not-the-same-everywhere-up-to-300-foot-variation/

https://www.quora.com/Is-sea-level-the-same-all-over-the-world

http://e360.yale.edu/features/the_secret_of_sea_level_rise_it_will_vary_greatly_by_region

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/news/2015/9/3/teaching-the-science-of-earths-rising-seas/ (Sorry BO - this is a NASA source, bad I know, but they all say the same thing ya know?)

 

 

BAA - easy - you'd convince us when Fort Pickens was underwater... :D if we were cynics who relied on our own observations. 

 

By the way, does comparing photos of the arctic from 1970 to now count as "my own observation", or do I have to time travel in a space capsule and see it for myself? Just wondering how far one has to go with the personal observation thing?

 

PS BAA - funny your scenario reminds me of the current dilemma I face with my father. Nothing even slightly changes his mind, in fact he digs in deeper: Darwin was hellbent on destroying God (Never mind Darwins personal letters showing the opposite), all Gospels written BEFORE AD 70 (We know John was AD 90 or so, but who cares about consensus opinion?) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LF,  

 

Who has been saying for over 20 years that NY City would be under water before now? That mayhem would strike us down?  Hasn't happened. Also,  if you want to cite glaciers, there are many glaciers that are gone since long before the industrial revolution.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Burnedout I haven't read once scientific article saying saying NY would be underwater by now. I have read news headlines predicting that though. I rely more on science papers than news sites.

 

However with all the material available there is a lot I probably haven't read. Can you point me to the NY prediction article/s please?

 

In saying that: Lets assume a peer reviewed science paper did make such a prediction. Is your position that if science is not 100% correct 100% of the time then everything science says on a subject is wrong? There's a thing called the theory of gravity.... you should look into it sometime. Turns out one of the worlds greatest scientists got some stuff inaccurate. Is the entire theory of gravity therefore a load of hogwash with no truth to it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

@Burnedout I haven't read once scientific article saying saying NY would be underwater by now. I have read news headlines predicting that though. I rely more on science papers than news sites.

 

However with all the material available there is a lot I probably haven't read. Can you point me to the NY prediction article/s please?

 

In saying that: Lets assume a peer reviewed science paper did make such a prediction. Is your position that if science is not 100% correct 100% of the time then everything science says on a subject is wrong? There's a thing called the theory of gravity.... you should look into it sometime. Turns out one of the worlds greatest scientists got some stuff inaccurate. Is the entire theory of gravity therefore a load of hogwash with no truth to it?

 

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016.html 

 

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/us-with-10-feet-of-sea-level-rise-17428 

 

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2015/06/12/flashback-abcs-08-prediction-nyc-under-water-climate-change-june 

 

http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/06/12/flashback-abcs-08-prediction-nyc-under-water-climate-change-june-2015 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

If the positions were reversed...

 

...and LogicalFallacy and HockeyFan70 were the mistrustful, cynical, climate change deniers...

 

...and if BO were the science-accepting, climate change believer who was seeing the sea level steadily rise...

 

...how could he possibly persuade them?

 

 

They'd just disbelieve anything he says, any photos he posted, any data that he cited and any source that he linked to.

 

:shrug:

 

 

 

People,

 

Please remember that when it comes to climate change there is no such thing as the truth.

 

All cited sources of information (pro or anti) are true lies, unfactual facts, pseudoscientific science, fake news, clickbait, cyberhacked sockpuppetry. propaganda and improperganda.

 

1bb.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks,

 

BAA thinks you are not capable of making up your own minds.  He thinks it takes some gate-keepers to do it for you.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Burnedout said:

 

Do you even read what you're replying to and the links you post?

 

Only the last two links pertain to a claim that NYC would be underwater by now, but those were from a media outlet, NOT scientific journals.

 

The first two links don't have that claim. The second link even gives a MUCH longer timeline for NYC being underwater, saying that it's CENTURIES in the future.

 

Now, as LogicalFallacy asked, where are the SCIENTIFIC PAPERS predicting that NYC would be underwater by now?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Citsonga said:

 

Do you even read what you're replying to and the links you post?

 

Only the last two links pertain to a claim that NYC would be underwater by now, but those were from a media outlet, NOT scientific journals.

 

The first two links don't have that claim. The second link even gives a MUCH longer timeline for NYC being underwater, saying that it's CENTURIES in the future.

 

Now, as LogicalFallacy asked, where are the SCIENTIFIC PAPERS predicting that NYC would be underwater by now?

 

 

 

Where do you think the media got the predictions?  Do you think they pulled it out of their ass?  I not saying they didn't but I not saying they did.  If they said something that misrepresented some researchers, they could be sued.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

  State Climatologist for the state of Alabama.  Rather than get into a pissing match with me, you can contact this guy yourself.  Here is a link to his contact info:  http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/users/john.christy/about.html 

 

 

 A former member and scientist who left the IPCC due to fraud. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

Folks,

 

BAA thinks you are not capable of making up your own minds.  He thinks it takes some gate-keepers to do it for you.  

 

Folks,

 

Gate-keepers vetted, approved and presented the data that BO has cited in this thread.

 

He didn't measure, record or compile the data himself, either.

 

Please draw your own conclusions.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0