Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

mofongo wrote

Also, visit the NASA page on global warming. Here is a handy visualization of years of hard data and the answer to several of your questions.

https://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/climate-time-machine

4

daniel wrote

We only have about 200 years of actual temperature records. A lot of that is piece-meal and certainly not homogenous in terms of the calibration of the instruments and locations of the readings. In terms of infrared/thermal satellite data, we only have about 60 or so years max. The rest is inferred. We can all make predictions, but none among us has a crystal ball. I think it's very premature to forcast the climate from the existing data. And I think it's very irresponsible to forcast 'the climate' which literally spans eons from such a small sample of data. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum is a great place to start with space weather research.

−12

mofongo wrote

Why do you think that global warming being natural is in any way better or more acceptable than it being manmade?

4

daniel wrote

https://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html I think that there are multiple feedback loops, the water cycle, the carbon cycle, etc. We are definitely fucking with the carbon cycle as humans by pulling a lot out of the ground, but I think it's a minor problem compared to the real environmental degredation, most of that is from improper disposal/release of chemicals, toxic materials, nuclear waste, ocean contamination, and household waste. The plastic, heavy metals, slag, runoff, just junk pouring into rivers and oceans... That stuff is getting people sick now. Carbon is relatively benign in comparison, you're not going to collapse the food chain by adding more carbon, removing it yes, but not adding. You will collapse the foodchain by over fishing, deforestation, insect extinction, dumping an island of trash the size of Texas into the ocean, etc. I want to focus on solutions, the most cost effective and easy to implement ones first.

−12

mofongo wrote (edited )

You're correct, all those are pressing issues. However, adding CO2 can cause environmental collapse. Simply look at ocean acidification: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification which leads to dead zones: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology) like the Gulf of Oman in the Arabian Sea:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabian_Sea

Each and everyone exacerbate the other.

4

daniel wrote

The amount of CO2 is not without effect, but the premise for it influencing climate and temperature in the concentrations discussed lacks a mechanism, and lacks experimental reproducability. The problem with planting trees and landfilling is that is helps solve the problem and doesn't allow the state to exert complete control over the people.

−11

[deleted] 0 wrote

2

daniel wrote

Not sure what kind of 'response' you're looking for... Are you saying that the Earth is not getting greener?

−12

[deleted] 0 wrote

1

daniel wrote

I've acknowledged your post three times now. What is it that you want me to say?

−13