- Joined
- May 8, 2017
- Messages
- 2,578
- Reaction score
- 697
- Location
- New York City area
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
I have said for many years that before we can identify something abnormal in the climate, we first have to understand what is normal.See fascinating articles, Rapid Atlantification along the Fram Strait at the beginning of the 20th century and Arctic Ocean has been ‘Atlantifying’ for at least a century. A similar article appeared in today's New York Times,This Ocean Invaded Its Neighbor Earlier Than Anyone Thought, but is probably paywalled.
The gist of these articles is that the Arctic Ocean is merging with the Atlantic Ocean, and this is diminishing the Arctic ice pack. Thus, shutting down economic activity will not alter the pace of climate change.
I propose a solution even to this natural problem, see Dam the Fram (Strait Between Iceland and Greenland)! Stop Climate Change Now!See fascinating articles, Rapid Atlantification along the Fram Strait at the beginning of the 20th century and Arctic Ocean has been ‘Atlantifying’ for at least a century. A similar article appeared in today's New York Times,This Ocean Invaded Its Neighbor Earlier Than Anyone Thought, but is probably paywalled.
The gist of these articles is that the Arctic Ocean is merging with the Atlantic Ocean, and this is diminishing the Arctic ice pack. Thus, shutting down economic activity will not alter the pace of climate change.
I have said for many years that before we can identify something abnormal in the climate, we first have to understand what is normal.
Climate scientologists whose funding depends on their being a problem for them to try to solve. Next.God for you. Meanwhile, climate scientists have said for years that AGW is altering the climate with potential disastrous results.
Climate scientologists whose funding depends on their being a problem for them to try to solve. Next.
What ridiculous BS.See fascinating articles, Rapid Atlantification along the Fram Strait at the beginning of the 20th century and Arctic Ocean has been ‘Atlantifying’ for at least a century. A similar article appeared in today's New York Times,This Ocean Invaded Its Neighbor Earlier Than Anyone Thought, but is probably paywalled.
The gist of these articles is that the Arctic Ocean is merging with the Atlantic Ocean, and this is diminishing the Arctic ice pack. Thus, shutting down economic activity will not alter the pace of climate change.
What ridiculous BS.
They is only one ocean. Just because we give them different names does not mean that they are completely separate or independent from each other. This isn't science, this is sheer stupidity to think the waters of the Arctic will not merge with the waters of the Atlantic or any other body of water it encounters.
Are there really people so stupid that they think the Atlantic and Arctic oceans are completely separate oceans? Apparently the New York Times does, but nobody has ever accused the New York Times of being intelligent.
As if "Atlantification" was even a word. ROFL! What morons.
The conclusion that "shutting down economic activity will not alter the pace of climate change" doesn't follow. If there is more than one source of global warming, (some manmade, some natural) reducing the manmade sources most certainly would alter the pace of climate change. It might not reverse it or even stop it, but it would slow it.See fascinating articles, Rapid Atlantification along the Fram Strait at the beginning of the 20th century and Arctic Ocean has been ‘Atlantifying’ for at least a century. A similar article appeared in today's New York Times,This Ocean Invaded Its Neighbor Earlier Than Anyone Thought, but is probably paywalled.
The gist of these articles is that the Arctic Ocean is merging with the Atlantic Ocean, and this is diminishing the Arctic ice pack. Thus, shutting down economic activity will not alter the pace of climate change.
Do you even have a concept of just how small a contribution the human species makes?The conclusion that "shutting down economic activity will not alter the pace of climate change" doesn't follow. If there is more than one source of global warming, (some manmade, some natural) reducing the manmade sources most certainly would alter the pace of climate change. It might not reverse it or even stop it, but it would slow it.
The imbalance is the problem. Normal non-human CO2 emissions are and have always been balanced by natural carbon sinks. This is why it has remained more or less steady. The extra CO2 contribution by human industry isn't. Rather than a net zero scenario where CO2 production and absorption is in balance, you have extra carbon emissions by humans accumulating and increasing the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This CO2 it isn't going anywhere and it is steadily increasing. Over time, it will make quite the difference.Do you even have a concept of just how small a contribution the human species makes?
The atmosphere contains 0.0415% carbon dioxide, or 3.05 trillion metric tons. According to the EPA, the human contribution of CO2 world-wide is 36 billion metric tons. Or 1.18% of the 0.0415% that is in the atmosphere. You a talking about 0.0005% (4.898 ppmV) of the total atmosphere, and you think that makes a difference?
As opposed to some energy companies whose income depends on trashing the science.Climate scientologists whose funding depends on their being a problem for them to try to solve. Next.
Do you even have a concept of just how small a contribution the human species makes?
The atmosphere contains 0.0415% carbon dioxide, or 3.05 trillion metric tons. According to the EPA, the human contribution of CO2 world-wide is 36 billion metric tons. Or 1.18% of the 0.0415% that is in the atmosphere. You a talking about 0.0005% (4.898 ppmV) of the total atmosphere, and you think that makes a difference?
Greta Thunberg, Al Gore, Elton John and Bon Jovi would beg to differ. And I'm sure that Glasgow had some great pass-around hors d'oeuvres.Do you even have a concept of just how small a contribution the human species makes?
The atmosphere contains 0.0415% carbon dioxide, or 3.05 trillion metric tons. According to the EPA, the human contribution of CO2 world-wide is 36 billion metric tons. Or 1.18% of the 0.0415% that is in the atmosphere. You a talking about 0.0005% (4.898 ppmV) of the total atmosphere, and you think that makes a difference?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?