Global Warming

[sandhunter]

In an interesting twist on the issue, British researchers last year published an article in the peer reviewed scientific journal Nature showing how volcanic activity may be contributing to the melting of ice caps in Antarctica—but not because of any emissions, natural or man-made, per se. Instead, scientists Hugh Corr and David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey believe that volcanoes underneath Antarctica may be melting the continent’s ice sheets from below, just as warming air temperatures from human-induced emissions erode them from above.

So global warming is not the whole truth , but the truth they want us to believe

[MaxJoker]

Originally Posted by Estreeter

And exhale more of that precious CO2

Urged my (Latest) wife to quit using those things she has for spraying her hair , under her pits and inside her pants as it`s helping cause global warming

She said "Aerosols".

I told her it was true

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by sandhunter

So global warming is not the whole truth , but the truth they want us to believe

I note the word may in your quote, which implies that this researcher has an hypothesis in need of more research and testing.

I believe it is important for us to understand that the climate stability which has allowed us to proliferate extravagantly and dominate life on the planet has always been an extremely temporary condition. Much of the research I have reviewed has argued that we ought to be sliding into another ice age, but for our profligate burning of fossil fuels. We would not do well at all with the majority of the areas where we now grow food covered in ice sheets, random violent storms and rapid temperature shifts over the rest of the planet. It is estimated that less than 100,000 human beings survived the last ice age.

Instead, we have precipitated a warming trend which seems to mimic an age where mammals led a marginal existence. We are witnessing a massive die off of existing species, including insects. Our studies of the fossil records argues that as the existing varieties of life perish, room is created for new ones to evolve and thrive. Indeed, some sharks are already seen to be adapting. All we seem to have done is changed the trajectory of the environment. Whether that is a temporary blip, or complete alteration is unknown. But we do know that it is extremely unlikely that we will be able to adapt in such a way that the planet can support 7.5 billion of us, or even if we can survive at all. All that is moot, because we all should know that based on the current state of our science it extremely unlikely that any current VEF member will be alive in 100 years. I doubt that I will last another 20.

I believe we can also agree that Greta Thunberg is an hysterical teen who has attracted much media attention and is giving vent to the feelings of her generation. With 4 sisters, 6 nieces, and 14 female first cousins, it is my experience that one cannot reason with these creatures, but they often change radically within a few years. Therefore, I see no point in becoming unduly upset by the attention currently directed towards her. What is Malala Yousafazi doing these days? She is a person who may have more lasting impact.

[BigBucket]

It doesn't matter if people believes in Global Warming or not. Two things are clear. Yes we have finite resources and we need to look at ways of cuttiing back to make them last longer or to the point we no longer need to.



Also we need to clean up after ourselves. If everyone from big business to the ordinary Joe just cleaned up after themselves then perhaps we would be able to leave this world in a better state than were we found it and hopefully the next generation will do the same.


Yes I know it will never happen.

[ukcarter]

Originally Posted by sandhunter

The problem I have is this , in the 1970's they said by the year 2000 most of the US's coastal cities would be under water ....

But who were "they"? Journalists trying to make a headline? Politicians looking for votes or actual scientists publishing research?

Can you provide a reference to a scientific paper making a claim that most US cities would be underwater by 2000?

Again, one of the points in favour of journalists like Peter Hadfield is that his channel potholer54 makes explicit references to the primary scientific data in peer-reviewed journals.

[ukcarter]

Originally Posted by peach64

Antarctica...it's a no fly zone

South Pole Flights

Originally Posted by peach64

you CANNOT visit or explore the interior. What's up with that?

South Pole Touist Selfies

Originally Posted by peach64

And yet the maps of antiquity illustrate it as once being fertile with no ice, and inhabited?

Could you provide an example? They also thought the sun round the Earth and that the Earth was flat.

[bowlinggreen]

Perhaps he was referring to this?



I must agree to some degree with Estreeter, there is a certain amount of hype around "climate change" that makes me go hmmmmm.

When dissenting scientists are shouted down and shut out, we must conclude that we are looking at beliefs that have more of an aspect of religion rather than rational scientific debate.

A thousand years ago, Greenland was warm enough to farm on, and humans had nothing to do with that.

Peachy is right about one thing - the elites like having a Chicken Little or two running about at all times to distract the masses from issues they ought to be genuinely mad about.

"Don't look at my giant stock portfolio - the earth is warming! Eat a plant burger! Cut off your balls and become a trannie so you don't contribute to overpopulation!"

The last is a real problem - there will not be sufficient food and water to feed the masses if population growth continues at this pace.

[Vaxter]

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

A thousand years ago, Greenland was warm enough to farm on, and humans had nothing to do with that.

No it wasn't between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles.

That's pretty much the last time you could've farmed on it.

The glaciers of Greenland took tens of thousands of years to form.

You know why Greenland is called Greenland, not because it was ever green in written history. Public Relations. It was called Greenland in an attempt to get settlers and fishermen to live there. Greenland apparently sounded better than giant block of thousands year old ice.

And for even more on the topic:

https://skepticalscience.com/greenla...o-be-green.htm

[cicciobuki]

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

Perhaps he was referring to this?


.

Is that the Piri Reis map?



It was popular in the Erich Von Daniken days.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by Vaxter

No it wasn't between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles.

That's pretty much the last time you could've farmed on it.

The glaciers of Greenland took tens of thousands of years to form.

You know why Greenland is called Greenland, not because it was ever green in written history. Public Relations. It was called Greenland in an attempt to get settlers and fishermen to live there. Greenland apparently sounded better than giant block of thousands year old ice.

But it is true that for several hundred years Viking settlers were able to live on the coast on Greenland. Sadly, after the medieval warm period ended round about 1320, the conditions became harder and harder and in the end the colony disappeared. It wasn't evacuated, no survivors were repatriated to Scandinavia. The settlers quite literally disappeared, almost certainly some starved and some tried to escape back to Scandinavia and sank on the way. Their farms had stopped supporting human life and they died, QED.

There's a rather dismal episode of Secrets of the Dead which covers the archaelogical evidence of the death of this colony and how it died.