and at other periods in time it was significantly higher. But there is no evidence that we have ever seen change at this velocity, except as a product of major planetary scale catastrophes such as the Chicxulub impact or the formation of the Deccan Traps
2 Likes
correct. and what Iām trying to say is that it very likely that humans just havenāt been studying this long enough to really understand whatās truly happening on our own planet. we theorize, we measure and we calculate. we know something is happening, and we can quantify the changes on a scale which we can measure for the past 50-odd years.
But to be honest, with the population explosion that weāre in the middle of right nowā¦ there is no reversing what is going on. Carbon taxes arenāt going to stop it, thatās just a rake from the government on the end consumer when that same government is perfectly willing to continue to let the petroleum companies explore and extract and sell their products for massive profits.
until the entire system of trade on this planet is overhauled, there will be not adjustments to the trajectory of the changes we are seeing in our climate. and you KNOW that wonāt happen, because the ones who are making all of the money are the ones making the rules.
What is it you are suggesting is narrow minded? The near uniform position of the scientific community that what we are experiencing is man made and not related to any of the prior causes of climate change comes from an evaluation of the data from a variety of fields. If the things you raised are relevant, then they would have been considered and thrown out as not consistent with the data. Dont you think itās narrow minded to think you as just some dude has some great insight that the entire community doesnt have, or doesnt understand?
2 Likes
well done on picking one sentence out of the entire statement, and ignoring the two sentences that followedā¦
sorry I messed that up. anyways, I donāt disagree that climate change is happening. evidence is everywhere. but weāre talking about ~50yrs of accurate data on a planet thatās existed for hundreds of millions of year and has had at least one global extinction already.
tell me again oh fearless leader Trudeau, how paying carbon taxes will fix the environment?
What do consider data?
We have thousands and in other domains hudreds of thousands if not millions of years of data.
From ice carrots to geological data, where do you think your:
Came from?
1 Like
Just pick and choose so you can say what you like!
Quoting the next two sentences changes nothing. Because the point is not a refutation of any specific point, but responding to the idea that an unusually strong consensus of the scientific community only reached their position because they didnt factor in this great insight you had.
The details dont matter, and someone who knows this field better may be able to explain why that specific path on inquiry is a dead end, but the point is whatever idea you have that would argue against this consensus, if it is at all relevant, will have been considered. And so if the consensus, again, an unusually strong consensus in terms of the level of agreement and level of confidence, says they are not factors then it is because they are not compatible with what is being observed.
you mean, like
wtf is an ice carrot?
also, hereās a good read for those who think humans have the ultimate control over climate change. bad news is, weāre just specks of dust. whether we like it or not, there will be many more ice age. many more planetary heating and cooling cycles.
A Climate Time Machine
The small changes set in motion by Milankovitch cycles operate separately and together to influence Earthās climate over very long timespans, leading to larger changes in our climate over tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. Milankovitch combined the cycles to create a comprehensive mathematical model for calculating differences in solar radiation at various Earth latitudes along with corresponding surface temperatures. The model is sort of like a climate time machine: it can be run backward and forward to examine past and future climate conditions.
Milankovitch assumed changes in radiation at some latitudes and in some seasons are more important than others to the growth and retreat of ice sheets. In addition, it was his belief that obliquity was the most important of the three cycles for climate, because it affects the amount of insolation in Earthās northern high-latitude regions during summer (the relative role of precession versus obliquity is still a matter of scientific study).
He calculated that Ice Ages occur approximately every 41,000 years. Subsequent research confirms that they did occur at 41,000-year intervals between one and three million years ago. But about 800,000 years ago, the cycle of Ice Ages lengthened to 100,000 years, matching Earthās eccentricity cycle. While various theories have been proposed to explain this transition, scientists do not yet have a clear answer.
Milankovitchās work was supported by other researchers of his time, and he authored numerous publications on his hypothesis. But it wasnāt until about 10 years after his death in 1958 that the global science community began to take serious notice of his theory. In 1976, a study in the journal Science by Hays et al. using deep-sea sediment cores found that Milankovitch cycles correspond with periods of major climate change over the past 450,000 years, with Ice Ages occurring when Earth was undergoing different stages of orbital variation.
Several other projects and studies have also upheld the validity of Milankovitchās work, including research using data from ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica that has provided strong evidence of Milankovitch cycles going back many hundreds of thousands of years. In addition, his work has been embraced by the National Research Council of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
Scientific research to better understand the mechanisms that cause changes in Earthās rotation and how specifically Milankovitch cycles combine to affect climate is ongoing. But the theory that they drive the timing of glacial-interglacial cycles is well accepted.
Again, no one is arguing there are not other factors that can influence climate and have driven large changes in the past. The point is that, allegedly, according to the scientific consensus, none of these are present today in any meaningful way that would explain our current warming trajectory. In fact, some of these are actually currently acting in the opposite direction, working in a way that should be seeing us cool. Weāre just not seeing it because the effects of man made climate change are masking those effects. When you see IPCC models that say we are responsible for 120% of warming thatās what itās referring toā¦that without these other factors our own intervention would have resulted in warming being even greater than weāve observed.
2 Likes
We have data going back much further. Ice core data going back 800k years for example that show CO2 levels. It has never been higher I think.
I think there have been 5 or 6 mass extinction events we know of
Iāll admit this is a topic Iām way behind on but the ever increasing number of people I come across that deny it is worrying. They are well educated people too, so whereās their info coming from I what Iād like to know
Just prooving your ignorance, take the scientific advise and accept it!
itās bad enough we have irradiated the entire globe with our toying with atomic particles. 1 in every 100 people on earth currently have cancer. Soon enough, nature will find a way to get rid of us and restore balance.
Ignorance is bliss!!!
This is a really fantastic discussion between people who both studied philosophy in university on the epistemological crisis that results in things like this. One of the things they discuss is that level of education is actually positively associated with climate change denial on the right. Itās not an issue of intelligence or education, but something deeper and more pernicious.
itās not ignorance, my dear frenchman. I know whatās happening to this planet same as you do. but I also know enough not to trust everything we see and hear in the media these days. if the events of the last pandemic hasnāt jaded you at least a little bit when it comes to āscienceā and how the media portrays āfactsā then you and I will just not agree on every aspect of it.
The irony, that podcast requires an apple login. Makes me chuckle just that little bit moreā¦
Itās a relevant observation, but Iād say from 180 degrees the other perspective. Most of the people wailing about how the science got the pandemic wrong donāt actually genuinely understand the issues but instead are voicing misrepresentations
You got him. So hypocritical to talk about climate change while participating in society.
itās subscription-basedā¦if you donāt have an apple login, you canāt listen. thatās the irony, amigo.
Thatās a very generalized statement. But if you canāt see the 180-degree change in policy from the start to finish of the pandemic and how much of it was monetizedā¦ well I canāt help that.