Arctic ice melt could trigger uncontrollable climate change at global level

  • Thread starter Thread starter lynnvinc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Has there been any research done on forces outside of the atmosphere that may have contributed to a lack of temperature stability?
The scientists are well aware of the various factors that impact climate and CC. For instance solar radiation goes in high to low cycles over about an 11 year period. Here is a graph with the solar cycle and the warming. Notice how the warming & cooling somewhat track the solar cycle up about 1980, then around 1980 they diverge, which is due to the greenhouse effect becoming more predominant a factor.

http://icons.wxug.com/metgraphics/climate/facts/Solar_vs_Temp_basic.gif

There are other factors as well (like the elliptical orbits, etc), which scientists are also aware of, but none, except the increasing greenhouse effect can account for the current warming trend.

There is also the field of paleoclimatology that studies past climates and climate change, using these and other various factors to explain it.

It is a very interesting field.
 
There is quite a bit we can do without calling for population control.

It’s sort of interesting that it is mainly those non-environmentalist CC accepters who jump to blaming overpopulation…instead of the harder work of thinking about what they can do to reduce their GHGs. That’s what I’ve found when I present the CC issue, hoping that instead they will ask, what can I do?

Bad, evil solution – let everyone abort their children or not have children, so I don’t have to lift a little figure to reduce my GHGs 😦

These types are no better than those who deny CC.
So why do you politically support the population control and baby-killing party?
 
Can we keep this to the topic of Arctic Ice melt and uncontrollable climate change?
That ignores the major purpose behind all these manufactured claims of impending ecological doom. The main driving force behind this is the satan-inspired belief that PEOPLE are the problem, so we need to kill babies in the womb to help heal the earth.

Focusing on the doom-and-gloom predictions, without looking at the underlying goals, is ignoring the primary issue.
 
That ignores the major purpose behind all these manufactured claims of impending ecological doom. The main driving force behind this is the satan-inspired belief that PEOPLE are the problem…
No, it is what people are doing that is the problem. People need not do these things. And we don’t need to kill babies in the womb to solve the problem. This just a desperate attempt to tie plain ordinary science to something detestable. How many climate scientists do you know that are advocating for population control? I’m speaking of scientists now. Not policy makers. The evil “underlying goals” you speak of are unfairly attributed to these fine researchers.
 
That ignores the major purpose behind all these manufactured claims of impending ecological doom. The main driving force behind this is the satan-inspired belief that PEOPLE are the problem, so we need to kill babies in the womb to help heal the earth.
That is absurd.

Louisiana’s coastline is disappearing at the rate of a football field an hour. All of this results from three processes that reinforce and amplify each other’s effects: levee construction, oil and gas exploration and sea level rise. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, southern Louisiana has “the highest rate of relative sea level rise of any place in the country, and one of the highest rates anywhere on the planet.”

pri.org/stories/2014-09-23/louisianas-coastline-disappearing-rate-football-field-hour
 
That ignores the major purpose behind all these manufactured claims of impending ecological doom. The main driving force behind this is the satan-inspired belief that PEOPLE are the problem, so we need to kill babies in the womb to help heal the earth.

Focusing on the doom-and-gloom predictions, without looking at the underlying goals, is ignoring the primary issue.
I have seen some speak of the increasing population as a problem, and how will they all be fed in 2100, as food productivity is sharply declining, esp after mid-century, due to CC & other serious env problems.

I know we have starving people in various places around the world today, but we actually are producing plenty for all – it just isn’t getting to them.

I’m also concerned about food productivity in the future, which is why I got into the CC issue in the 1st place.

My solution – we should all be mitigating CC, as Pope Francis calls on all the people of the world to do.

As for population, there are other solutions than abortion & murder. If a good number of people would enter celibate religious life, that’s a solution, & would make those religions look more appealing to others. Or abstinence makes the heart grow fonder… 1st step would be to get off all those hormone foods & chemicals (that are likely stimulating the sex drive), that are not good for the health anyway, some causing cancer & birth defects, etc.

Another solution would be for the rich to change their diets, eat less meat, eat more locally grown produce, so as to share more food with the poor. And there are experiments with urban agriculture that look promising.

There are plenty of really good solutions both to CC & feeding the world’s pop. As to limiting extreme pop growth, many poor countries are already going thru “demographic transition” – see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition – on their own, so pop increase (in the face of reducing food supplies) will likely not be as big a problem as some think.
 
That is absurd.

Louisiana’s coastline is disappearing at the rate of a football field an hour. All of this results from three processes that reinforce and amplify each other’s effects: levee construction, oil and gas exploration and sea level rise. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, southern Louisiana has “the highest rate of relative sea level rise of any place in the country, and one of the highest rates anywhere on the planet.”

pri.org/stories/2014-09-23/louisianas-coastline-disappearing-rate-football-field-hour
Funny, here in Florida our sea level isn’t rising. Must be a localized sea level rising in the Gulf of Mexico! :rotfl::rotfl:
 
No, it is what people are doing that is the problem. People need not do these things. And we don’t need to kill babies in the womb to solve the problem. This just a desperate attempt to tie plain ordinary science to something detestable. How many climate scientists do you know that are advocating for population control? I’m speaking of scientists now. Not policy makers. The evil “underlying goals” you speak of are unfairly attributed to these fine researchers.
A large portion of scientists have become atheists over the last several decades. Now it is to the point that the majority of scientists are atheistic. And population control and abortion are largely supported in the atheist community.

I think it’s silly to believe that a large segment of scientists don’t buy into the population control and abortion evils.
 
A large portion of scientists have become atheists over the last several decades. Now it is to the point that the majority of scientists are atheistic.
Source?
think it’s silly to believe that a large segment of scientists don’t buy into the population control and abortion evils.
I think it’s silly to believe that they do.
 
Yet when I went back to Florida this last year for a vacation the beach was right where it was when I lived there decades ago.

The water is right where it has been for decades.
It has not gone up or down.
Who are you gonna believe, some website, randomly chosen from a Google search, or your own lyin’ eyes?
 
The first part of the quote was on athiesm, it didn’t carry over.

But since you asked here you go.

gallup.com/poll/154946/non-christians-postgrads-highly-pro-choice.aspx
This poll is about post-grads, which may include scientists, but also doctors, lawyers, MBAs, educators, etc. And still there is nothing on population control. Moreover, even among the post grads, there is still a “large segment” that is pro-life.

By all means keep trying, but I don’t think that you will find evidence to support this gross overstatement:
I think it’s silly to believe that a large segment of scientists don’t buy into the population control and abortion evils.
 
This poll is about post-grads, which may include scientists, but also doctors, lawyers, MBAs, educators, etc. And still there is nothing on population control. Moreover, even among the post grads, there is still a “large segment” that is pro-life.

By all means keep trying, but I don’t think that you will find evidence to support this gross overstatement:
You like to pick and choose. In the first place, I didn’t make the statement, I was curious by the statement and did a search and posted a couple of things.

Did you intentionally omit the non-religious portion?
 
I was curious by the statement and did a search and posted a couple of things.
Sorry I thought that you were supporting the statement.
Did you intentionally omit the non-religious portion?
Wasn’t relevant to the overstatement.
 
A large portion of scientists have become atheists over the last several decades. Now it is to the point that the majority of scientists are atheistic. And population control and abortion are largely supported in the atheist community.

I think it’s silly to believe that a large segment of scientists don’t buy into the population control and abortion evils.
I think denialists lobbing death threats at the small children of climate scientists is also bad, It’s wrong to kill atheists & their children, whether thru murder, pushing them to suicide, or thru the knock-on effects of CC.

We are all in the same boat…sinking. We should have compassion for each other, no matter what a person’s beliefs.

I know several climate scientists, but don’t know their religious beliefs, except one who is Adventist (his wife is Catholic, as are his children & grandchildren), and two are Evangelical.

And they all are extremely concerned about the impact of CC on their and others’ children & grandchildren’s future.

Can’t we at least turn off lights not in use & the many other things that save money or don’t cost, at least for the sake of the future generations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top