If we were to build a giant mirror in space in a position to orbit and block out a certain percent of the Sun's energy.... But how big and how far and what percent of the Sun's energy will mimic a healthy environment for here on Earth?
I'm just spit balling, I'd admit, but in the times of glaziers in the decline, it's going to get hot, tempers are going to flare, resource is going to get bare, tropical diseases will spread, viruses will mutate....
Correct.. and human beings will tend to behave at an all new low........ Luke 23:31 "For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?" The climate crisis will bring out the worst in many of us... and the best in others.
And this is something I had explained to me way back in the late 1970's by my Science teacher. He was a Geology Major, and one of the things he was constantly teaching us was to think of things in "Geological Time". And at that time, the current screaming from the "Climate Change" faction was that the world was entering into another Ice Age. Caused by the pollution humans were causing blocking more sunlight. He talked about how ice caps reflect light, and lowers the temperatures. And that that claim was bogus, because even though winters were in a cold cycle at the time the Ice Caps annually were still shrinking. And that this shrink would accelerate, as more ice melted and the planet absorbed more sunlight. To this day, I still think back on a video he showed us to try and think in "Geologic Time". That is a 1968 Canadian film called "The Rise and Fall of the Great Lakes". [video] Now this is a simplified version of geologic history of the region, but it does make some key points. Before the most recent ice age cycle, the Great Lakes was a wet tropical landscape. With crocodiles in habiting the region. And today it is much different, with some of the largest lakes on the planet, and a cold, humid continental climate with temperatures that range from -40F to 100F. He was even a believer in the at that time new and somewhat controversial theory that the Yellowstone Hotspot was moving, and it is what carved out the Snake River Basin. Our regular trips to the Bruneau-Jarbridge fossil beds and the fossils we recovered from it (including palm trees) helped show us how different things in our region had been a relatively short time before. Geologically speaking. Which means about 10 million years. So somebody screaming about minor changes in a period of a few decades? That is only an example to me of the Chicken Little Effect.
Viruses mutate all the time anyways. They simply mutate faster in a tropical environment because of the greater bio-diversity. And things will not get all that much hotter, but the planet will grow more humid, with great rainfall. What most people fail to realize are the other changes that happen during an interglacial. Temperatures rise a little, humidity increases a lot, rainfall increases planet wide. And in the early stages, it has been believed that CO2 levels will rise, as the movement of animals move into the previously frozen areas and range fires of the new savannahs increases CO2. But this CO2 has another effect, it eventually causes the explosion of plant life. Towards the middle phase, the CO2 content is much lower, and the O2 content of the atmosphere is much higher than it is now. There may be changes in the atmospheric pressure because of this, but much of that is speculation. Way back in the Early Carboniferous period, O2 content was around 35% (it is around 21% today), and the air was about 20% more dense (which is what allowed the massive fossilized insects to fly).
Often absent and ignored in climate discussions and global warming are the best climate records available, ice cores. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2616/core-questions-an-introduction-to-ice-cores/ An ice core. Credit: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center/Ludovic "The oldest ice cores, from East Antarctica, provide an 800,000-year-old record of Earth’s climate. How do we know they’re that old? Each season’s snowfall has slightly different properties than the last. These differences create annual layers in the ice that can be used to count the age of the ice, just like rings inside a tree."
"Antarctic ice cores show us that the concentration of CO2 was stable over the last millennium until the early 19th century. It then started to rise, and its concentration is now nearly 40% higher than it was before the industrial revolution (see Fig. 2 overleaf). Other measurements (e.g. isotopic data) confirm that the increase must be due to emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel usage and deforestation. Measurements from older ice cores (discussed below) confirm that both the magnitude and rate of the recent increase are almost certainly unprecedented over the last 800,000 years. The fastest large natural increase measured in older ice cores is around 20ppmv (parts per million by volume) in 1,000 years (a rate seen during Earth’s emergence from the last ice age around 12,000 years ago). CO2 concentration increased by the same amount, 20ppmv, in the last 10 years! Methane (CH4), another important greenhouse gas, also shows a huge and unprecedented increase in concentration over the last two centuries. Its concentration is now much more than double its pre-industrial level. This is mainly due to the increase in emissions from sources such as rice fields, ruminant animals and landfills, that comes on top of natural emissions from wetlands and other sources." https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/ Most who are serious do indeed look, and it aint pretty.
In the Bay of Fundy the frequency of the waves resonates with tidal frequency. The principal of superposition applies so the tidal range is larger. When you talk with a full cup of water you create waves in the cup. The waves are created by your motion which has the same frequency as the waves. That's why the fluid will eventually flow over the sides of the cup.
So do you think that the fact that the difference from low tide to high tide where I live being about one meter........ .... and the difference near Truro, Nova Scotia being fifteen meters......... could likely mean that a one meter rise in the average ocean level where I live... .could mean a fifteen X increase in high tide levels near Truro, N. S?
Don't forget Forest fires also play an important role in the CO2 balance, and that such is necessary, however, the spikes and valleys of CO2 are deceptive in nature unless we understand the complete carbon cycle as it relates to climatology.
If I remember correctly what is meant by that comment is covered either in this trailer..... or definitely in the full length version of this that is on Netflix documentaries.
Yes.... just like a volcanic eruption...... that sets in motion cooling of the climate..... so also wide spread forest fires can take millions of trees out of the business of consuming CO2....... at the same time that they put huge amounts of ash,soot and dust into the atmosphere. A volcanic eruption is considered to have been the cause of the Little Ice Age that hit Europe..... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/volcanoes-may-have-sparked/ I really was impressed by the explanation for the probable long term effects of climate change given by AboveAlpha: Is this analysis of the probable long term effects of climate change logical?
not much hotter is subjective, 10c warmer will catastrophic to the environment and humanity "climate change" is exactly that...how the climate will change and where it will change are still relatively unknowns, some regions are most definitely becoming hotter and drier not more humid and wetter... research has shown that in closed setting such as greenhouse CO2 does help plants but in a natural setting where crops have had extra CO2 piped in they do not have a significant growth improvement...without extra water, nitrogen, and other nutrients the additional CO2 isn't beneficial
Some scientists would debate that..... https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth ...... http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36130346 Rise in CO2 has 'greened Planet Earth'
I'm not seeing how this disproves what Wyly said. Being greener in some average sense doesn't resolve issues of dislocation of humans due to rising seas, dryer and hotter areas, harsher storms or agriculture.
Wgabrie..... just a few days ago I got verification for the number of 4.3 trillion that AboveAlpha sent me over a year ago that got me thinking and thinking and thinking....... and yes.... caused me to be a bit like some of the characters on the Bug's Bunny cartoons who would get Dollar signs in their eyes...... in certain scenes. I suspect that A....A.... got that figure from Jim Rickards...... I believe that AA watched this video... .and probably bought his books...... http://www.politicalforum.com/index...stralia-or-california.530861/#post-1069020199
No. There's no physical reason for sea level rise to show up multiplied in extreme tidal areas. 1m of sea level rise means a high tide level 1m higher in the Bay of Fundy. Tides are interesting. People tend to misunderstand them. It's not the force pulling up that creates tides, otherwise there would be significant tides in deep lakes like Lake Superior. What matters is the force pulling tangentially more along the sides of the earth (relative to the moon), a tiny force that adds up over thousands of miles of ocean. That sets the water into motion, and the momentum of the moving water makes the tides.
Thank you for getting right to the heart of the question....... I hope that you are correct but it seems to me that with an extra meter of ocean water......... getting funneled with all that inertia behind it......... .... pulled by the gravity of the moon...... I do think that this is a question that deserves considerable research.
Ahhh, the arrogance of man. Who says that this climate we are in now is the "norm"? And that it is indeed the "best" for the "environment"? Here is the very problem with that statement, it is very arrogant. It is taking the assumption that humans are the best for the planet, and what life we have now is the most and best. When in reality, it is simply the best for humans. That's it. Simple truth, the greater the temperatures, the greater the biodiversity. https://www.scientificamerican.com/...-increase-during-warm-periods-earths-history/ That is why we have eras that are known for this, like the Canbrian Explosion. A 20-25 million year era about 540 MYA that is considered to have been the greatest in both biomass and biodiversity in the history of the planet. And it was hotter than it is now, a lot hotter. Global mean temperature today is right around 56F. During the Cambrian? 72F, that is 16F hotter than it is now. People are looing their minds now over a CO2 in excess of 400 PPM. During the Cambrian, it was over 4,000 PPM. For those that are math deficient, that is over 10 times the CO2 in the atmosphere today. People obsessing about .3% and .5% increases per decade, hah! No, the simple truth is that if this trend continues (which I believe is completely natural BTW), that it may not be the best for much of the life that is on the planet now. But guess what, this is where evolution steps in! You know, that science thing that states that plants and animals will evolve and adapt and thrive to match the conditions? Global warming, reduced ice caps, greater humidity, warmer temperatures, extended growing cycles, all of these are a paradise for Darwinism. Science itself has shown over and over that during such warm cycles, life flourishes, and expands to cover parts of the world that it did not exist on before. Now that it might not be the best for people, so what? Do you think science or nature really cares about a monkey that climbed out of a tree a few million years ago and has convinced itself that it is the best thing for the planet? I don't think so. No more than it cared about the overgrown warm blooded lizards that ruled the planet 65mya. This is the arrogance of man at work. It looks around itself, and anything that has changed is simply wrong and can not be tolerated. Never mind that when humans first walked into North America the San Francisco Bay did not exist. And when a prophet named Joshua bar Joseph in a provincial backwater of the Roman Empire in the year 786 AUC, there was a large freshwater lake sitting right in the middle of what is today known as Death Valley. No, the climate alarmists are the worst kind of reactionaries. Like the Chihuahua that goes ballistic because you move the furniture, they run around screaming because things this century are not the exact same as the last century. Never mind that the last century was not the same as the century before that. That does not matter of course.
a non scientists who believes this climate change event is natural despite literally millions of scientists who say otherwise?...I don't think you should lecturing anyone about arrogance...
