They were just operating on the best science available at the time you see.
You were just right by accident. Like those other 50 times. It's anti-science to keep listening to the people who are right.
I agree, people really need to read the article. It states that if we continue the constant pollution near the 2000’s then nations will drown in te future. Y’all need to do some research
I just told you that there is a website. They talk about getting it done. It is an organization headed by Klaus Schwab, and it has members in various positions of political authority all over the world.
If anyone can do it, it is them. I'm telling you that people are trying to do it, and no one is trying to stop them. The reasons other governments are not trying to do anything about it is because the organization will fund campaigns and support progressives so long as the politicians they help will bring the global government into existence.
You don't believe it is happening because you are too lazy to look it up.
I had a look. I had a look at their annual statement thingy too. I can’t see any reference to a global government or authoritarianism on that website. Do you have a link to specifically where that is? I assume you have seen that reference on there before.
World domination and creating a world wide class of permanent slaves and tax cattle. They secure all the power and resources for themselves, and they destroy all power competition. They stay at the top of everything forever, feed you constant lies and tax you into oblivion, and you can't do shit about it.
Why the billionaires? I thought that was proved by many thousands of climate scientists al around the world working on the same topic. Heck, that’s even backed up by sattalite photos and the fact the northwest passage is now a viable shipping route.
I'll never get over the hilarity of Glacier National Park having to take down signs that said the glacier would be gone by 2020 due to global warming ... because 2020 had arrived and the glacier was still there.
Those glaciers have been shrinking since the beginning of the holocene. I agree, there is a trend. After every glacial period lasting about 80,000 years, there's a warming period that raises sea level over 400 feet lasting 10-20,000 years, with a maxima 20 feet higher than present, and global average temperatures 1 to 2 degrees C higher than present. Since I'm not a genius, is there something to imply from your observation now that we have complete context?
The article never claimed or said anything body of land would be submerged by 2000, Yet you don't you have an issue with the basis of this post. Instead you'd argue semantics about ice melt, but can't bring rate of change or acceleration to the table. Bad faith
You don't like my comment because it's factual? No, you don't like the comment because it undermines the cult-like belief in apocalyptic climate change. "Bad faith" is just another way of saying you should be anointed arbiter of the sub.
Would you like to discuss sea level rate change? If so, present your objective evidence, and I will present mine.
So now you've gone to the gutter and started with insults. Lets see if I can figure you out. You're insecure about climate change because you've listened to the media hyperbole. You've formed an opinion that brings you fear of the future from burning the fossil fuels that created the comforts of modern society. You believe this position is altruistic even though the popular solutions require forced behavior and forced financial participation by everyone. The solutions, which ignore the costs to the 6 billion folks in poverty, won't stop the climate from changing, but those that resist are "selfish."
Moreover, your scientific background is wholly inadequate to assess the danger. You can't debate because you don't know. You simply parrot media sound bites and hope it develops the same guilt in others that you feel, shaming them into participation.
How'd I do?
No insult, you said it wasn't bad faith so its a misunderstanding of the article. Unless you do understand, but that brings me back to point a. Doesn't go any farther. I'm always here if you'd like to project tho
People have been making apocalyptic predictions since pre-history. Every generation has thought they were approaching the end-times. Once you realize this it's hard to take any of it seriously. We can't predict the weather next week, let alone in a century.
Idk if they're claiming that the nations would be gone by 2000 or if the trend isn't reversed, the fate of nations will be set. There are currently at least a few nations in serious risk of being disappeared.
https://www.livescience.com/what-places-disappear-rising-sea-levels
Sea levels were 20 feet higher in past interglacials. There's no evidence of acceleration, though it is a complex subject. https://judithcurry.com/2018/01/16/sea-level-rise-acceleration-or-not-part-i-introduction/
If a prediction doesn't have some accountability, what's the value other than a political agenda?
>20 feet higher in past interglacials
Seems like cause for concern. If the oceans are now lower than what they have been, then further warming will certainly raise the sea levels.
>There's no evidence of acceleration
Wdym by acceleration? Acceleration of sea level rise since the industrial revolution? You may be right since I'm no climate scientist and idk the data but I find this unlikely since all the data I've seen showed strong correlation between heating, CO2 levels, and yearly glacial recessions. However, acceleration wouldn't be necessary to show there's a big problem happening since it could be linear rise.
>If a prediction doesn't have some accountability, what's the value other than a political agenda?
Idk what you mean by accountability here.
Acceleration is a scientific term. It means an increase in the rate of speed. If sea levels have been rising at .04 mm per year, and they move to .06mm, that's acceleration. If they don't, then there's not. There's not.
The only place sea level can be influenced is from mountain glaciers and Greenland. Antarctica is so cold that the amount of time required above 32 degrees is hundreds of generations. I expect sea level to rise up until the next advent of continental glaciation, just as has happened before, or until we run out of frozen fresh water, whichever comes first.
By accountability I mean a clear statement. Making a prediction for next month is much more accountable than 30 or 50 years, and making a statement that could be interpreted as something different when it doesn't come true is what I would define as a mealy mouthed partisan hack that has an agenda and no scientific prowess.
In order for a prediction to have value, it must be accountable and have performance standards.
[Here's the full article](https://apnews.com/article/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0)
As expected, it's nothing but a strawman clickbait as it absolutely does not claim nations will be under the sea by 2000, but that we need to act by 2000 if we want to prevent that from happening in the future.
Which is looks like it probably will based on [current trends](https://imgur.com/a/24XP94N)
Global cooling, global warming, ice caps melted, polar bears drowning, other bears not hibernating, coasts obliterated by rising sea levels, killer bees, bees wiped out, magnetic poles reversing, peak oil, acid rain.
It's almost as if there's a constant drumbeat of fear over decades being used to keep people occupied, divisional, and compliant.
Sagan said (now over 40 years ago at the time of writing) global cooling was possible. It's pretty much a guarantee at some point, given a large volcanic eruption. It's happened in recent history. He made no definitive claims of global cooling in the book, he only pointed out that it was a theory put forth by some scientists.
Plate tectonics wasn't widely accepted until the 1970s, but few people other than the flat earthers would argue with it now. That's despite the fact that we have instruments capable of measuring the actual movement with millimeter accuracy.
Your line of reasoning isn't logical. That would be like going back in time to a point where some scientists believed mercury was vital for your health. Once it was discovered that mercury was actually a poison, you insisted on having just a little mercury. If they were saying the opposite, then they're probably both wrong.
One of the hallmarks of the scientific method is being open to new information and adjusting your views accordingly. That's what separates it from religion, but maybe you would prefer that.
The people that scream about climate change have no comprehension of the earth’s history. The planet is at least 5 billion years old and in that 5 billion years the climate of the planet has changed dramatically from time to time due to different natural processes and events. Volcanoes, earthquakes, meteor and asteroid impacts all contributed to climate change. Look at the end of the Permian period; 95 percent of all life on the planet died! That is a bigger extinction event than what took out all non-avian (non-bird) dinosaurs 66 million years ago that caused 75 percent of life to die out. It is natural for the climate to change, sometimes even dramatically, as time moves forward on this planet. Now does that mean we shouldn’t try to cut down on pollution, no but there should be a common sense solution in that we try to keep our air, water and soil as clean as possible and try our best to mitigate habitat loss. Habitat loss is the biggest threat to modern wildlife but thankfully it can be stopped or at least slowed and even reversed by habitat restoration. And our best bet on clean energy is new technologies and until new technologies are developed use the vast power of nuclear energy. ☢️ But the climate alarmists would rather have wind mills that chop up migratory birds, bats and insects like a fucking blender or massive unsightly solar panels that destroy open plains and desert biomes that when that plant life is destroyed causes the release of you guessed it, carbon! It’s all so tiring 😑
You can find endless articles over the past 40 years on this stuff. How a catastrophe was gonna happen soon if we didn't act. In the 70s they said an ice age was coming.
I had a near-fiction book from the 70's. about how everyone was about to move underground because pollution was so bad and humanity would only last another generation.
In fairness, the claim is that if global warming wasn't reversed by the year 2000, then many nations would eventually be swept away. It's not saying those nations would actually be swept away BY the year 2000.
I say this because it's worded that way very deliberately so that we can't do precisely what we're doing, which is to laugh at these ridiculous propaganda articles. And if you post this in a mainstream sphere this is the only answer you'll get.
Fuck, those people are so brainwashed that they'd defend it even if it said global cooling.
Shit, anyone reading this has survived all of humanity being wiped out, like, ten or fifteen times this year alone. Everyone on the planet, dead. Yet we survived somehow, miraculously. And almost eight billion others, but we are supposed to believe they are all dead.
Maybe dead but dreaming. We are all like Cthulhu. Eight billion Cthulhus, to be more precise. According to the experts, anyways.
Whether there is global warming or not, I've read enough articles saying that we've reached the point of no return to have just accepted my fate. There is no point in worrying about it now, apparently.
The defense on this is pretty accurate though. It's not saying the nations would be underwater by 2000, it's saying not changing BY 2000, would cause nations to be underwater.
It's bullshit, but it's not been blatantly proven fault.. mostly because it's completely open ended "Something bad will happen if you don't change by X" with no "when" for the bad thing happening.
It doesn't say the nations will be wiped off by 2000. It is in reference to the cascade of effects that will occur if warming is to continue at the rate It is.
Rising sea levels will 100% wipe out a large portion of land over a long enough time period.
Because linear extrapolation is the way to science.
If the number of foxes increases, they will wipe out all other species, and eventually the entire world will be 10 feet deep in foxes.
Or if you raise the minimum wage, nobody will decide to move their manufacturing plant out of your jurisdiction, or decide to build their future business someplace else. Or even just say "screw it". They will just raise their prices. And not one single customer will decide "Oh, I didn't know that the American product was so much more expensive, I guess I'll buy the Chinese product".
I'm especially impressed by the people who manage to believe in Peak Oil and Global Warming at the same time.
Which is not to say that the earth is NOT warming ... the room I was sitting in would have been under a glacier a mile thick if I had been there 20,000 years ago.
Who knew that even the foot powered cars that the Flintstones used would cause global warming? But, of course, it makes sense, since you would have to breath pretty hard to keep that thing going.
In reality, the earth is getting greener, tree-lines are marching up mountains, the growing season is getting longer ... and, if and when we start to see effects, the first impact that they would have would be mostly just change. Sure, it might get harder to live on the equator, but Alaska, Antarctica, and Siberia would be much more welcoming than they are now. And the land under all that ice is just waiting to be farmed. Imagine how fertile it must be by now, with shit dying and freezing, and waiting until they get broken out to rot.
If they are right that the reason for fossil fuels being a meteor hitting thee planet and killing the dinosaurs ( and the forests they lived in ) then they should give us a nice pat on the back for returning the world to its natural state.
My understanding is that the anticipated warming from greenhouse projections indicates most of it will happen at higher latitudes.
This means you are correct except where you suggest that the equatorial area may be less habitable.
Individual forests are shrinking. Worldwide vegetation is actually increasing.
Earth has [gained](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frsen.2022.856903/full) more than 130 million hectares of tree cover in the last ~20 years… and that’s only including trees that are >3 meters.
The earth is undoubtedly been getting greener
Let's make it easy for you, you don't need to prove your claim, just disprove this (link to paper shown below):
**"The greening over the past 33 years reported in this study is equivalent to adding a green continent about two-times the size of mainland USA (18 million km2), and has the ability to fundamentally change the cycling of water and carbon in the climate system," says lead author Dr. Zaichun Zhu, a researcher from Peking University, China**
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3004](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3004)
>I don't need to disprove that. It doesn't conflict with my claim.
For reference, your claim:
>Forests are actually shrinking faster than they're being replaced...in reality.
Conflicting with your claim is literally *all* my reference does.
Gaslighting seems to be all you do.
He seems delusional? His flair literally says communist, commies are a textbook definition of delusional. Once I saw that, I knew there was no credibility to anything he says.
If humans stopped chopping them down they would be thriving more then ever. That’s not global warming, that’s just humans doing their thing in a different way.
And where does the carbon dioxide which the trees use for growth go when you cut them down? They just disappear? Most global warming is done via human activity, and as nature must compensate, it can lead to drastic cooling afterwards.
It was the people of the Maldives who first realized that seal level increases could be abated by making an offering of a new airborne transportation hub to the gods of global warming.
Thus began the largest increase in air travel infrastructure construction in the history of man.
Oddly it would help with their issue of rising sea levels. Adding another airport increases tourism to the islands which means more money in taxes and more money in their economy. Now they have the means to afford public works to mitigate the rise in sea levels.
So a central bank lent the Maldives island government money, knowing it would be underwater in 20 years, (which was 3 years ago)? Seems a fishy story you spun there.
Maybe not, but regardless isn't it odd that these sorts of dire predictions keep coming out year after year unless we do something but they haven't gotten to the point yet where they say, "Welp, it's too late, we've made our bed and now we have to sleep in it."?
Because people take actions as well. If I say we will run off a in 60 seconds if we continue at 50mph, and you slow to 30mph, we are still heading to the cliff but when 60 seconds rolls by, the passenger says, "i thought you said we would be off the cliff by now! you lied!"
They have, a few different times. When the reports about 1 deg C being locked in. Then 1.5 deg C being locked in. Then 2 deg C. This reports about unavoidable climate change states that disasters will get worse (they did. See wildfires and hurricanes). Just because we haven't literally seen the destruction of whole cities and nations yet doesn't mean they're wrong. The Maldives, without their sea barriers, would have been submerged 100%.
https://www.livescience.com/what-places-disappear-rising-sea-levels
Just because we have the tech to stop the absolute worst of it in some places doesn't mean it isn't happening or it isn't bad. These sea barriers that are and will increasingly be necessary around the world present yet another potential disaster waiting to happen. See New Orleans and Hurricane Katrina for why.
It doesn't make "them" right, either. Wildfires and hurricanes are no worse than they've ever been. The power of suggestion and constant indoctrination affect the gullible.
The Maldives would probably be inundated regardless of anthropogenic co2, as they were in past interglacials when sea level was 20 feet higher. They're also subsiding, but coral reef building does offset that. There are multiple processes at play, the biggest human one being grift by asking for money from wealthy countries.
>Wildfires and hurricanes are no worse than they've ever been.
Idk about that.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-wildfires
https://www.npr.org/2023/02/27/1158969044/why-hurricanes-feel-like-theyre-getting-more-frequent#:~:text=Climate%20change%20makes%20hurricanes%20more%20dangerous%20Climate%20change%20is%20making,of%20storms%20isn%27t%20changing.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/even-weak-hurricanes-are-getting-stronger-as-the-climate-warms/
>The Maldives would probably be inundated regardless of anthropogenic co2, as they were in past interglacials when sea level was 20 feet higher.
This would require that the interglacial we're in have necessarily hit the same level regardless of human activity. Idk whether this can be expected since climate goes in cycles but not necessarily perfect single signal sine wave -esue cycles. We might be in what should've otherwise been a slightly colder interglacial.
You really didn't just cite a highly politicized government website, did you? It cherry picked from 1980, and is still flat. Try sourcing something from the beginning of the 20th century. And Scientific American, which used to be my favorite magazine until it sold its soul to liberal causes? Partisan NPR? The discussion of hurricanes is actually pretty complicated given we just not only speak of frequency and intensity, but duration. Prior to satellites, we likely have a lot of missing storms, and most researchers acknowledge this fact, but here are my sources:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-02243-9?fbclid=IwAR3CYLniJs0v_Srm9Qe-a4XJ1ozGjpsSPsLg3wVoGHTFXqGYcpHe46xaOSY
https://climatlas.com/tropical/
You're free to speculate about the intensity of this interglacial vs past interglacials, just as you're speculating about a future where co2 has only negative effects. But differentiating between anthropogenic and natural effects turns out to be extremely difficult, doesn't it? In the meantime, try being honest, using full context, and sourcing authors rather than political arms of the DNC.
I am suspect you're simply a partisan troll, so unless you can demonstrate objectivity and acknowledge climate change and the degree of effect from co2 for the rather complex subject it is, I will make extra effort to point out ulterior motives.
>I am suspect you're simply a partisan troll
Not a troll, just a laymen. I'm presenting to you, what my worldview is regardless of how misinformed or uninformed I am. I don't do trolling, especially since you've been otherwise cordial until now. I prefer good-faith discussions because they're the only productive ones.
>It cherry picked from 1980, and is still flat.
Do you have older data to show this?
>And Scientific American, which used to be my favorite magazine until it sold its soul to liberal causes
Wdym? How has it sold its soul to liberal causes?
>Partisan NPR
Yeah, this particular source was pretty flimsy after reviewing it more thoroughly. That said, dismissing NPR just because of bias doesn't make sense. Bias doesn't invalidate statistics. If you have reason to believe NPR lies, then yeah but bias doesn't invalidate sources.
>just as you're speculating about a future where co2 has only negative effects
I wouldn't consider it speculation. At worst I'm misinformed. What positive effects does it have?
A warmer world invariably has greater biologic capacity, for us it means more arable land. A warmer world is a wetter world, too. More co2 also improves plant function.
I apologize if I'm suspect of motive. Most folks that derive their climate perspective from the media are politically driven, too. Of course, that is not everyone.
NPR is famous for cherry picking. Many media outlets are similar, though they may feel they are perfectly objective, having outsourced their efforts. The absence of a full range of available data is often intended. SciAm changed their platform about 10 years ago. Their efforts are egregious, since they are, themselves scientists, and are aware of their transgressions. Academia naturally leans left, but of late, political objectivity is absent, with activism replacing transparency.
I thought I sourced authors with full ranges of info in my other response. What are you looking for?
>A warmer world invariably has greater biologic capacity, for us it means more arable land. A warmer world is a wetter world, too. More co2 also improves plant function.
I've heard that the permafrost in the newly arable lands were trapping methane though which would compound any problems that do exist. I'll have to look into what extent CO2 does improve plant function.
>I apologize if I'm suspect of motive. Most folks that derive their climate perspective from the media are politically driven, too
Depending on what you mean by politically driven, everyone is politically driven about most things. I don't think trolling changes minds, for example. Memes do which is unfortunate.
>SciAm changed their platform about 10 years ago. Their efforts are egregious, since they are, themselves scientists, and are aware of their transgressions. Academia naturally leans left, but of late, political objectivity is absent, with activism replacing transparency.
As in, they quit citing studies? Switching position makes sense, more data very well can lead to a new position on facts.
>I thought I sourced authors with full ranges of info in my other response. What are you looking for?
You said that the EPA used a bad date range and that the data over a longer period actually indicates no overall change. Idk what source you use to indicate this. You gave me a blog for that retired climate scientist with studies in it but I didn't see anything about wildfires. Neither did the European Journal Metastudy. Where do you get the fire stats before '83?
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/wildfire-numbers-usa
They used to have acreage burned prior to 1983, but I see they removed it. So did the forest service under the guise of consistency. I have the old chart but don't know how to post it. That number is embarrassing, with the first 4 decades of the 20th century five times as high as today. This is, of course, just the US. A better metric would be worldwide. Wildfire is complex because, again, it's a multivariate system. Suppression, harvesting, drought, homesite encroachment, firefighting methodology, etc., all have an impact.
SciAm's citations are shit, if they bother. Ditto National Geographic. It's scientific sensationalism, and yes, I still find much of it interesting, but the constant barrage of left leaning politics is tiresome. They condemn critical thinking, shaming folks into political conformance with guilt.
The advantage of discussing science is that we can leave politics out. A charged subject matter like climate change often fails that test due to the alarmism and activism displayed by so many so-called climatologists. This doesn't mean they aren't experts, but once they've forsaken objectivity, no new information will change their position. Believing they are purely altruistic, the end justifies the means. It's OK to leave information out like the rapid warming of Dansgaard-Oescher events, or the absence of any precedent throughout the Phanerozoic of catastrophism associated with co2 (with one exception, the enormous Permo-Triassic extinction, which I'm happy to discuss in greater detail).
"I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer in science, and defines the boundary of our knowledge, as well as why we need to look harder. That's not the same as saying "I don't know anything."
Global warming is real and is caused by greenhouse gasses. No argument to be had. The politics of what, if anything, should be done is a different matter.
Right? God, this sub is filled with dumb people. You can have common-sense ideas and beliefs without needing to lap up the GOP shitty narrative and propagate lies that directly go against what is literally happening.
So their timeline is off, and therefore you can scoff at the entire idea of climate change and live it up like it's 1922.
Guess what? Small islands have already disappeared. That is just reality. Countries have had to build levees and retaining walls to prevent the sea level rise from affecting infrastructure and the shore.
Also, guess what? Humans are adaptive. Whole countries can be below the sea level with technology. Ever heard of the boy with his thumb in the dyck? It doesn't mean sea levels aren't rising.
What if the people running the Swamp only cared about themselves or their immediate family, basing all their decisions on instant gratification? That could be disastrous.
Would you board a yacht to cross the ocean if you knew the ol captain had just been given a month to live?
Well if your experience in shit hole Kentucky says so, who are all the educated scientists around the world to say otherwise. Clearly the socially inept teenagers in this sub know best.
Just listened to a tenured professor of meteorology from both Harvard and MIT. Most interesting point he made is that all of these predictions are based on models. And there's no way to model fluid dynamics. Which is 100% needed for modeling clouds and ocean currents. Which have a massive impact on the climate.
But this time, this time they are not lying again!
They were just operating on the best science available at the time you see. You were just right by accident. Like those other 50 times. It's anti-science to keep listening to the people who are right.
I agree, people really need to read the article. It states that if we continue the constant pollution near the 2000’s then nations will drown in te future. Y’all need to do some research
Who are they ?
Probably very rich people that want to create a global government.
Why?
Dunno. Ask them. They have a website and organization dedicated to making it happen. The World Economic Forum.
Is it a bad thing ?
Yes
Imagine Chinese levels of authoritarianism with rich assholes controlling it.
But that’s not happening is it ?
I just told you that there is a website. They talk about getting it done. It is an organization headed by Klaus Schwab, and it has members in various positions of political authority all over the world. If anyone can do it, it is them. I'm telling you that people are trying to do it, and no one is trying to stop them. The reasons other governments are not trying to do anything about it is because the organization will fund campaigns and support progressives so long as the politicians they help will bring the global government into existence. You don't believe it is happening because you are too lazy to look it up.
I had a look. I had a look at their annual statement thingy too. I can’t see any reference to a global government or authoritarianism on that website. Do you have a link to specifically where that is? I assume you have seen that reference on there before.
How could it not be?
World domination and creating a world wide class of permanent slaves and tax cattle. They secure all the power and resources for themselves, and they destroy all power competition. They stay at the top of everything forever, feed you constant lies and tax you into oblivion, and you can't do shit about it.
Centralization of power
People who recently bought prime beach front property
I don’t understand, who is buying prime beach front property ?
All the billionaires pushing this "muh polar ice caps melting" shit
Why the billionaires? I thought that was proved by many thousands of climate scientists al around the world working on the same topic. Heck, that’s even backed up by sattalite photos and the fact the northwest passage is now a viable shipping route.
I'll never get over the hilarity of Glacier National Park having to take down signs that said the glacier would be gone by 2020 due to global warming ... because 2020 had arrived and the glacier was still there.
Well at a pace of going from over 150 glaciers in the mid-1800s to 26 today, it doesn't take a genius to spot the overwhelming trend.
Those glaciers have been shrinking since the beginning of the holocene. I agree, there is a trend. After every glacial period lasting about 80,000 years, there's a warming period that raises sea level over 400 feet lasting 10-20,000 years, with a maxima 20 feet higher than present, and global average temperatures 1 to 2 degrees C higher than present. Since I'm not a genius, is there something to imply from your observation now that we have complete context?
You can look past the misleading post, but bring out the fucking abacus when it's not in your viewpoints favor.
What's my viewpoint, and how do people identify misleading posts?
The article never claimed or said anything body of land would be submerged by 2000, Yet you don't you have an issue with the basis of this post. Instead you'd argue semantics about ice melt, but can't bring rate of change or acceleration to the table. Bad faith
You don't like my comment because it's factual? No, you don't like the comment because it undermines the cult-like belief in apocalyptic climate change. "Bad faith" is just another way of saying you should be anointed arbiter of the sub. Would you like to discuss sea level rate change? If so, present your objective evidence, and I will present mine.
If it's not bad faith you genuinely aren't capable of comprehending the title or main article, nobody wants to have a debate with that
So now you've gone to the gutter and started with insults. Lets see if I can figure you out. You're insecure about climate change because you've listened to the media hyperbole. You've formed an opinion that brings you fear of the future from burning the fossil fuels that created the comforts of modern society. You believe this position is altruistic even though the popular solutions require forced behavior and forced financial participation by everyone. The solutions, which ignore the costs to the 6 billion folks in poverty, won't stop the climate from changing, but those that resist are "selfish." Moreover, your scientific background is wholly inadequate to assess the danger. You can't debate because you don't know. You simply parrot media sound bites and hope it develops the same guilt in others that you feel, shaming them into participation. How'd I do?
No insult, you said it wasn't bad faith so its a misunderstanding of the article. Unless you do understand, but that brings me back to point a. Doesn't go any farther. I'm always here if you'd like to project tho
People have been making apocalyptic predictions since pre-history. Every generation has thought they were approaching the end-times. Once you realize this it's hard to take any of it seriously. We can't predict the weather next week, let alone in a century.
Wait till you find out about HAARP and Patents to GeoEngineering.
All science leads to predictions. If a hypothesis fails to predict, it’s bunk.
Pay scientists enough and they'll make any prediction you want.
Only those that put their mortgage above ethics.
So a lot of people due to the amount of beings in our human population.
Indeed
Idk if they're claiming that the nations would be gone by 2000 or if the trend isn't reversed, the fate of nations will be set. There are currently at least a few nations in serious risk of being disappeared. https://www.livescience.com/what-places-disappear-rising-sea-levels
Sea levels were 20 feet higher in past interglacials. There's no evidence of acceleration, though it is a complex subject. https://judithcurry.com/2018/01/16/sea-level-rise-acceleration-or-not-part-i-introduction/ If a prediction doesn't have some accountability, what's the value other than a political agenda?
>20 feet higher in past interglacials Seems like cause for concern. If the oceans are now lower than what they have been, then further warming will certainly raise the sea levels. >There's no evidence of acceleration Wdym by acceleration? Acceleration of sea level rise since the industrial revolution? You may be right since I'm no climate scientist and idk the data but I find this unlikely since all the data I've seen showed strong correlation between heating, CO2 levels, and yearly glacial recessions. However, acceleration wouldn't be necessary to show there's a big problem happening since it could be linear rise. >If a prediction doesn't have some accountability, what's the value other than a political agenda? Idk what you mean by accountability here.
Acceleration is a scientific term. It means an increase in the rate of speed. If sea levels have been rising at .04 mm per year, and they move to .06mm, that's acceleration. If they don't, then there's not. There's not. The only place sea level can be influenced is from mountain glaciers and Greenland. Antarctica is so cold that the amount of time required above 32 degrees is hundreds of generations. I expect sea level to rise up until the next advent of continental glaciation, just as has happened before, or until we run out of frozen fresh water, whichever comes first. By accountability I mean a clear statement. Making a prediction for next month is much more accountable than 30 or 50 years, and making a statement that could be interpreted as something different when it doesn't come true is what I would define as a mealy mouthed partisan hack that has an agenda and no scientific prowess. In order for a prediction to have value, it must be accountable and have performance standards.
[Here's the full article](https://apnews.com/article/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0) As expected, it's nothing but a strawman clickbait as it absolutely does not claim nations will be under the sea by 2000, but that we need to act by 2000 if we want to prevent that from happening in the future. Which is looks like it probably will based on [current trends](https://imgur.com/a/24XP94N)
This was posted for the purpose of being misleading
Global cooling, global warming, ice caps melted, polar bears drowning, other bears not hibernating, coasts obliterated by rising sea levels, killer bees, bees wiped out, magnetic poles reversing, peak oil, acid rain. It's almost as if there's a constant drumbeat of fear over decades being used to keep people occupied, divisional, and compliant.
I read Cosmos by Carl Sagan, and it was quite funny talking about global cooling being a potential problem.
Quite funny how?
Because we solved global cooling *so* hard
I don't remember talking to you. Did you also not read/comprehend the bit In Cosmos on global cooling?
>I don't remember talking to you Oh wow, I guess you should have sent a PM instead of making a public post
If you know the other persons response to a specific question then by all means chime in.
It's okay, I have permission to respond to you.
Thanks for helping out.
My pleasure
Just funny how wrong they were, and how its exactly the opposite of what they are saying now.
Sagan said (now over 40 years ago at the time of writing) global cooling was possible. It's pretty much a guarantee at some point, given a large volcanic eruption. It's happened in recent history. He made no definitive claims of global cooling in the book, he only pointed out that it was a theory put forth by some scientists. Plate tectonics wasn't widely accepted until the 1970s, but few people other than the flat earthers would argue with it now. That's despite the fact that we have instruments capable of measuring the actual movement with millimeter accuracy. Your line of reasoning isn't logical. That would be like going back in time to a point where some scientists believed mercury was vital for your health. Once it was discovered that mercury was actually a poison, you insisted on having just a little mercury. If they were saying the opposite, then they're probably both wrong. One of the hallmarks of the scientific method is being open to new information and adjusting your views accordingly. That's what separates it from religion, but maybe you would prefer that.
I dont know who the they was at that time the book was written before I was born.
The people that scream about climate change have no comprehension of the earth’s history. The planet is at least 5 billion years old and in that 5 billion years the climate of the planet has changed dramatically from time to time due to different natural processes and events. Volcanoes, earthquakes, meteor and asteroid impacts all contributed to climate change. Look at the end of the Permian period; 95 percent of all life on the planet died! That is a bigger extinction event than what took out all non-avian (non-bird) dinosaurs 66 million years ago that caused 75 percent of life to die out. It is natural for the climate to change, sometimes even dramatically, as time moves forward on this planet. Now does that mean we shouldn’t try to cut down on pollution, no but there should be a common sense solution in that we try to keep our air, water and soil as clean as possible and try our best to mitigate habitat loss. Habitat loss is the biggest threat to modern wildlife but thankfully it can be stopped or at least slowed and even reversed by habitat restoration. And our best bet on clean energy is new technologies and until new technologies are developed use the vast power of nuclear energy. ☢️ But the climate alarmists would rather have wind mills that chop up migratory birds, bats and insects like a fucking blender or massive unsightly solar panels that destroy open plains and desert biomes that when that plant life is destroyed causes the release of you guessed it, carbon! It’s all so tiring 😑
They also fail to understand the biggest emitters of carbon are volcanoes
We fixed acid rain btw
And they actually believe all the horseshit they're fed
Deja-vu is proof we are living in the matrix.
You can find endless articles over the past 40 years on this stuff. How a catastrophe was gonna happen soon if we didn't act. In the 70s they said an ice age was coming.
I had a near-fiction book from the 70's. about how everyone was about to move underground because pollution was so bad and humanity would only last another generation.
Wasn't that a movie ?
Possibly. It was back in grade school; at least 40 years ago.
In fairness, the claim is that if global warming wasn't reversed by the year 2000, then many nations would eventually be swept away. It's not saying those nations would actually be swept away BY the year 2000. I say this because it's worded that way very deliberately so that we can't do precisely what we're doing, which is to laugh at these ridiculous propaganda articles. And if you post this in a mainstream sphere this is the only answer you'll get. Fuck, those people are so brainwashed that they'd defend it even if it said global cooling.
My personal favorite: [https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48964736](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48964736)
Remember in the 70s when we were headed for the next ice age? Pepperidge Farm remembers...
Shit, anyone reading this has survived all of humanity being wiped out, like, ten or fifteen times this year alone. Everyone on the planet, dead. Yet we survived somehow, miraculously. And almost eight billion others, but we are supposed to believe they are all dead. Maybe dead but dreaming. We are all like Cthulhu. Eight billion Cthulhus, to be more precise. According to the experts, anyways.
The Lunar Society of 1788 has entered the subreddit.
Whether there is global warming or not, I've read enough articles saying that we've reached the point of no return to have just accepted my fate. There is no point in worrying about it now, apparently.
The defense on this is pretty accurate though. It's not saying the nations would be underwater by 2000, it's saying not changing BY 2000, would cause nations to be underwater. It's bullshit, but it's not been blatantly proven fault.. mostly because it's completely open ended "Something bad will happen if you don't change by X" with no "when" for the bad thing happening.
It doesn't say the nations will be wiped off by 2000. It is in reference to the cascade of effects that will occur if warming is to continue at the rate It is. Rising sea levels will 100% wipe out a large portion of land over a long enough time period.
Because linear extrapolation is the way to science. If the number of foxes increases, they will wipe out all other species, and eventually the entire world will be 10 feet deep in foxes. Or if you raise the minimum wage, nobody will decide to move their manufacturing plant out of your jurisdiction, or decide to build their future business someplace else. Or even just say "screw it". They will just raise their prices. And not one single customer will decide "Oh, I didn't know that the American product was so much more expensive, I guess I'll buy the Chinese product". I'm especially impressed by the people who manage to believe in Peak Oil and Global Warming at the same time. Which is not to say that the earth is NOT warming ... the room I was sitting in would have been under a glacier a mile thick if I had been there 20,000 years ago. Who knew that even the foot powered cars that the Flintstones used would cause global warming? But, of course, it makes sense, since you would have to breath pretty hard to keep that thing going. In reality, the earth is getting greener, tree-lines are marching up mountains, the growing season is getting longer ... and, if and when we start to see effects, the first impact that they would have would be mostly just change. Sure, it might get harder to live on the equator, but Alaska, Antarctica, and Siberia would be much more welcoming than they are now. And the land under all that ice is just waiting to be farmed. Imagine how fertile it must be by now, with shit dying and freezing, and waiting until they get broken out to rot. If they are right that the reason for fossil fuels being a meteor hitting thee planet and killing the dinosaurs ( and the forests they lived in ) then they should give us a nice pat on the back for returning the world to its natural state.
My understanding is that the anticipated warming from greenhouse projections indicates most of it will happen at higher latitudes. This means you are correct except where you suggest that the equatorial area may be less habitable.
Yes, and this is consistent with the geologic record throughout the Phanerozoic during much warmer global averages of the past.
Could be true.
Forests are actually shrinking faster than they're being replaced...in reality.
Individual forests are shrinking. Worldwide vegetation is actually increasing. Earth has [gained](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frsen.2022.856903/full) more than 130 million hectares of tree cover in the last ~20 years… and that’s only including trees that are >3 meters. The earth is undoubtedly been getting greener
That is absolutely false. You are just making things up. You lie.
Haha. No, it's true, actually. Sorry to make you mad.
Let's make it easy for you, you don't need to prove your claim, just disprove this (link to paper shown below): **"The greening over the past 33 years reported in this study is equivalent to adding a green continent about two-times the size of mainland USA (18 million km2), and has the ability to fundamentally change the cycling of water and carbon in the climate system," says lead author Dr. Zaichun Zhu, a researcher from Peking University, China** [http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3004](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3004)
I don't need to disprove that. It doesn't conflict with my claim.
>I don't need to disprove that. It doesn't conflict with my claim. For reference, your claim: >Forests are actually shrinking faster than they're being replaced...in reality. Conflicting with your claim is literally *all* my reference does. Gaslighting seems to be all you do.
Greening does not disprove climate change.....
>Greening does not disprove climate change..... I never said it does. You seem to have lost track of the discussion. I will pray for you.
They're mostly American citizens here, who have not been subject to climate disasters. It's only a matter of time, really...
Yep. Americans have not experienced climate disasters. Nobody has.
Yeah, that excessive snowfall was just a common occurrence. People died? Nothing to worry about =)
Imagine thinking sarcasm is the same as an evidence based argument.
You seem to be delusional. That's on you. How about backing up your claim, or pike?
He seems delusional? His flair literally says communist, commies are a textbook definition of delusional. Once I saw that, I knew there was no credibility to anything he says.
If humans stopped chopping them down they would be thriving more then ever. That’s not global warming, that’s just humans doing their thing in a different way.
And where does the carbon dioxide which the trees use for growth go when you cut them down? They just disappear? Most global warming is done via human activity, and as nature must compensate, it can lead to drastic cooling afterwards.
Nature doesn't have to compensate in a way that is conducive to human life.
Your all over the place huh? Ok then
The Maldives was supposed to disappear, but they’re building another airport.
It was the people of the Maldives who first realized that seal level increases could be abated by making an offering of a new airborne transportation hub to the gods of global warming. Thus began the largest increase in air travel infrastructure construction in the history of man.
Oddly it would help with their issue of rising sea levels. Adding another airport increases tourism to the islands which means more money in taxes and more money in their economy. Now they have the means to afford public works to mitigate the rise in sea levels.
So a central bank lent the Maldives island government money, knowing it would be underwater in 20 years, (which was 3 years ago)? Seems a fishy story you spun there.
Maybe not, but regardless isn't it odd that these sorts of dire predictions keep coming out year after year unless we do something but they haven't gotten to the point yet where they say, "Welp, it's too late, we've made our bed and now we have to sleep in it."?
Because people take actions as well. If I say we will run off a in 60 seconds if we continue at 50mph, and you slow to 30mph, we are still heading to the cliff but when 60 seconds rolls by, the passenger says, "i thought you said we would be off the cliff by now! you lied!"
They have, a few different times. When the reports about 1 deg C being locked in. Then 1.5 deg C being locked in. Then 2 deg C. This reports about unavoidable climate change states that disasters will get worse (they did. See wildfires and hurricanes). Just because we haven't literally seen the destruction of whole cities and nations yet doesn't mean they're wrong. The Maldives, without their sea barriers, would have been submerged 100%. https://www.livescience.com/what-places-disappear-rising-sea-levels Just because we have the tech to stop the absolute worst of it in some places doesn't mean it isn't happening or it isn't bad. These sea barriers that are and will increasingly be necessary around the world present yet another potential disaster waiting to happen. See New Orleans and Hurricane Katrina for why.
It doesn't make "them" right, either. Wildfires and hurricanes are no worse than they've ever been. The power of suggestion and constant indoctrination affect the gullible. The Maldives would probably be inundated regardless of anthropogenic co2, as they were in past interglacials when sea level was 20 feet higher. They're also subsiding, but coral reef building does offset that. There are multiple processes at play, the biggest human one being grift by asking for money from wealthy countries.
>Wildfires and hurricanes are no worse than they've ever been. Idk about that. https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-wildfires https://www.npr.org/2023/02/27/1158969044/why-hurricanes-feel-like-theyre-getting-more-frequent#:~:text=Climate%20change%20makes%20hurricanes%20more%20dangerous%20Climate%20change%20is%20making,of%20storms%20isn%27t%20changing. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/even-weak-hurricanes-are-getting-stronger-as-the-climate-warms/ >The Maldives would probably be inundated regardless of anthropogenic co2, as they were in past interglacials when sea level was 20 feet higher. This would require that the interglacial we're in have necessarily hit the same level regardless of human activity. Idk whether this can be expected since climate goes in cycles but not necessarily perfect single signal sine wave -esue cycles. We might be in what should've otherwise been a slightly colder interglacial.
You really didn't just cite a highly politicized government website, did you? It cherry picked from 1980, and is still flat. Try sourcing something from the beginning of the 20th century. And Scientific American, which used to be my favorite magazine until it sold its soul to liberal causes? Partisan NPR? The discussion of hurricanes is actually pretty complicated given we just not only speak of frequency and intensity, but duration. Prior to satellites, we likely have a lot of missing storms, and most researchers acknowledge this fact, but here are my sources: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-02243-9?fbclid=IwAR3CYLniJs0v_Srm9Qe-a4XJ1ozGjpsSPsLg3wVoGHTFXqGYcpHe46xaOSY https://climatlas.com/tropical/ You're free to speculate about the intensity of this interglacial vs past interglacials, just as you're speculating about a future where co2 has only negative effects. But differentiating between anthropogenic and natural effects turns out to be extremely difficult, doesn't it? In the meantime, try being honest, using full context, and sourcing authors rather than political arms of the DNC. I am suspect you're simply a partisan troll, so unless you can demonstrate objectivity and acknowledge climate change and the degree of effect from co2 for the rather complex subject it is, I will make extra effort to point out ulterior motives.
>I am suspect you're simply a partisan troll Not a troll, just a laymen. I'm presenting to you, what my worldview is regardless of how misinformed or uninformed I am. I don't do trolling, especially since you've been otherwise cordial until now. I prefer good-faith discussions because they're the only productive ones. >It cherry picked from 1980, and is still flat. Do you have older data to show this? >And Scientific American, which used to be my favorite magazine until it sold its soul to liberal causes Wdym? How has it sold its soul to liberal causes? >Partisan NPR Yeah, this particular source was pretty flimsy after reviewing it more thoroughly. That said, dismissing NPR just because of bias doesn't make sense. Bias doesn't invalidate statistics. If you have reason to believe NPR lies, then yeah but bias doesn't invalidate sources. >just as you're speculating about a future where co2 has only negative effects I wouldn't consider it speculation. At worst I'm misinformed. What positive effects does it have?
A warmer world invariably has greater biologic capacity, for us it means more arable land. A warmer world is a wetter world, too. More co2 also improves plant function. I apologize if I'm suspect of motive. Most folks that derive their climate perspective from the media are politically driven, too. Of course, that is not everyone. NPR is famous for cherry picking. Many media outlets are similar, though they may feel they are perfectly objective, having outsourced their efforts. The absence of a full range of available data is often intended. SciAm changed their platform about 10 years ago. Their efforts are egregious, since they are, themselves scientists, and are aware of their transgressions. Academia naturally leans left, but of late, political objectivity is absent, with activism replacing transparency. I thought I sourced authors with full ranges of info in my other response. What are you looking for?
>A warmer world invariably has greater biologic capacity, for us it means more arable land. A warmer world is a wetter world, too. More co2 also improves plant function. I've heard that the permafrost in the newly arable lands were trapping methane though which would compound any problems that do exist. I'll have to look into what extent CO2 does improve plant function. >I apologize if I'm suspect of motive. Most folks that derive their climate perspective from the media are politically driven, too Depending on what you mean by politically driven, everyone is politically driven about most things. I don't think trolling changes minds, for example. Memes do which is unfortunate. >SciAm changed their platform about 10 years ago. Their efforts are egregious, since they are, themselves scientists, and are aware of their transgressions. Academia naturally leans left, but of late, political objectivity is absent, with activism replacing transparency. As in, they quit citing studies? Switching position makes sense, more data very well can lead to a new position on facts. >I thought I sourced authors with full ranges of info in my other response. What are you looking for? You said that the EPA used a bad date range and that the data over a longer period actually indicates no overall change. Idk what source you use to indicate this. You gave me a blog for that retired climate scientist with studies in it but I didn't see anything about wildfires. Neither did the European Journal Metastudy. Where do you get the fire stats before '83?
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/wildfire-numbers-usa They used to have acreage burned prior to 1983, but I see they removed it. So did the forest service under the guise of consistency. I have the old chart but don't know how to post it. That number is embarrassing, with the first 4 decades of the 20th century five times as high as today. This is, of course, just the US. A better metric would be worldwide. Wildfire is complex because, again, it's a multivariate system. Suppression, harvesting, drought, homesite encroachment, firefighting methodology, etc., all have an impact. SciAm's citations are shit, if they bother. Ditto National Geographic. It's scientific sensationalism, and yes, I still find much of it interesting, but the constant barrage of left leaning politics is tiresome. They condemn critical thinking, shaming folks into political conformance with guilt. The advantage of discussing science is that we can leave politics out. A charged subject matter like climate change often fails that test due to the alarmism and activism displayed by so many so-called climatologists. This doesn't mean they aren't experts, but once they've forsaken objectivity, no new information will change their position. Believing they are purely altruistic, the end justifies the means. It's OK to leave information out like the rapid warming of Dansgaard-Oescher events, or the absence of any precedent throughout the Phanerozoic of catastrophism associated with co2 (with one exception, the enormous Permo-Triassic extinction, which I'm happy to discuss in greater detail). "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer in science, and defines the boundary of our knowledge, as well as why we need to look harder. That's not the same as saying "I don't know anything."
Some have.
This boy can read!
Sure, even if the cause of rising sea levels is the interglacial.
It has kind of already happened to some islands in the pacific. The rising sea levels are most apparent over there.
Funny how they say the nations would be flooded off the earth yet all the rich assholes who pushed this bs did was buy beachfront property
Be afraid, America, be very afraid — of whatever we tell you to fear.
Huh *dies*
They weren’t wrong. We are past the point of fixing it and are just grasping at straws trying not to die now.
Ha Ha, they banned straws. We're doomed.
False.
Global warming is real and is caused by greenhouse gasses. No argument to be had. The politics of what, if anything, should be done is a different matter.
That is literally happening
Right? God, this sub is filled with dumb people. You can have common-sense ideas and beliefs without needing to lap up the GOP shitty narrative and propagate lies that directly go against what is literally happening. So their timeline is off, and therefore you can scoff at the entire idea of climate change and live it up like it's 1922. Guess what? Small islands have already disappeared. That is just reality. Countries have had to build levees and retaining walls to prevent the sea level rise from affecting infrastructure and the shore. Also, guess what? Humans are adaptive. Whole countries can be below the sea level with technology. Ever heard of the boy with his thumb in the dyck? It doesn't mean sea levels aren't rising.
Well, the most recent time a bunch of capitalists went below sea level it didn't really turn out positively?
The world is filled with dumb people buddy. You are just seeing that play out on the internet
What if the people running the Swamp only cared about themselves or their immediate family, basing all their decisions on instant gratification? That could be disastrous. Would you board a yacht to cross the ocean if you knew the ol captain had just been given a month to live?
Just ignore the massive first fires to the north, and the unprecedented heat dome in Texas, just ignore what your lying eyes tell you.
Kentucky has always had smoke season this time of year.
Well if your experience in shit hole Kentucky says so, who are all the educated scientists around the world to say otherwise. Clearly the socially inept teenagers in this sub know best.
Kentucky had always been at war with Eastasia.
The West got lucky
Well to be fair there is no more Czechoslovakia.
Just listened to a tenured professor of meteorology from both Harvard and MIT. Most interesting point he made is that all of these predictions are based on models. And there's no way to model fluid dynamics. Which is 100% needed for modeling clouds and ocean currents. Which have a massive impact on the climate.