Warning: file_get_contents(/home/www/settings/mirror_forum_db_enable_sql): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /var/www/html/content/Forum/functions.php on line 8
I hadn't heard that the planet is experiencing net greening, but that makes sense: of course plant life will take up more carbon in a warmer world. Check out the Triassic for instance.
However, while this is good news, I'd still be very cautious at this stage. And again, the key factor to be monitoring is environmental stress - of which global warming is just one factor.
i'm not a climate scientist
however, i believe with fairly solid evidence that if the sun were to cease the earth, including the climate would be much colder
i also read that greenhouse gases in our atmoshere prevent "the mystery heat" from radiating back out into space
of course i didn't read the link provided below or much of this thread
"ain't nobody got time for that"
Location: Really deep in the heart of South California Gender:
Posted:
Feb 24, 2026 - 10:38am
NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
I've actually got a lot of time for a decent dose of skepticism. Acid rain was a huge thing in the eighties until it turned out that most of the forests that were dying were largely artificial (monoculture) and basically not very resilient compared to a natural healthy mixed forest. However, air pollution is nevertheless still a thing and I'm very glad that we cleaned up our act since the eighties, otherwise we'd still be suffering from smog and bad air. A lot of people still are.
But the thing with climate change that most people don't understand is that it should be seen as part of a complex interaction that includes habitat loss, loss of biodiversity, rising sea levels, etc. all of which are measurably happening at very fast rates of change. Now, we can leave the reasons for these changes out of the argument for the moment. Whether the reasons be natural or man made doesn't really change the conclusion, which is that the natural environment is changing radically and quickly. Some species can adapt quickly to such change. Others can't.
In itself, even this is not necessarily a doomsday scenario. But it does mean that most environments are hugely stressed. And that in itself is a bad thing. It means they are less diverse and less resilient to the next natural catastrophe, such as an eruption or some other trigger. It also makes us more and more dependent on dwindling resources. Rising demand, fewer resources.. you can see where this is headed.
That alone is why we should be pursuing a very conservative approach to nature. Otherwise we are exposing ourselves to wild unexpected volatility as things try to adapt to unforeseen consequences or unexpected events. We don't need to change much in our behaviour to be good stewards so it is just basic risk management.
Yes to common sense.
Which tends to get thrown aside for the sake of generating bigger bucks... from both sides of this discussion.
Yep.
I posted something a while back about that.
The history of all that is pretty astounding.
It's all about the money for "my cause".
Oh... and the scare tactic. It pushes the news cycle.
Here's the thing about climate science, we clearly don't know everything but we do know/have very strong evidence for things. We know that burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide and have a very good handle on the amount since the industrial revolution. We have direct measurements of the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that are consistent with that. We know how carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can suppress the radiation of solar heat back out of the atmosphere. So there are observations and a mechanism to explain those observations.
Anyone who claims mainstream climate science is wrong, needs to show how that mechanism does not cause atmospheric warming. It is not enough to wave your arms around and say there are changes in solar activity. That does not explain away the effects of increased carbon dioxide on radiation of heat from the atmosphere.
I've actually got a lot of time for a decent dose of skepticism. Acid rain was a huge thing in the eighties until it turned out that most of the forests that were dying were largely artificial (monoculture) and basically not very resilient compared to a natural healthy mixed forest. However, air pollution is nevertheless still a thing and I'm very glad that we cleaned up our act since the eighties, otherwise we'd still be suffering from smog and bad air. A lot of people still are.
But the thing with climate change that most people don't understand is that it should be seen as part of a complex interaction that includes habitat loss, loss of biodiversity, rising sea levels, etc. all of which are measurably happening at very fast rates of change. Now, we can leave the reasons for these changes out of the argument for the moment. Whether the reasons be natural or man made doesn't really change the conclusion, which is that the natural environment is changing radically and quickly. Some species can adapt quickly to such change. Others can't.
In itself, even this is not necessarily a doomsday scenario. But it does mean that most environments are hugely stressed. And that in itself is a bad thing. It means they are less diverse and less resilient to the next natural catastrophe, such as an eruption or some other trigger. It also makes us more and more dependent on dwindling resources. Rising demand, fewer resources.. you can see where this is headed.
That alone is why we should be pursuing a very conservative approach to nature. Otherwise we are exposing ourselves to wild unexpected volatility as things try to adapt to unforeseen consequences or unexpected events. We don't need to change much in our behaviour to be good stewards so it is just basic risk management.
i'm not a climate scientist
however, i believe with fairly solid evidence that if the sun were to cease the earth, including the climate would be much colder
i also read that greenhouse gases in our atmoshere prevent "the mystery heat" from radiating back out into space
of course i didn't read the link provided below or much of this thread
"ain't nobody got time for that"
i'm not a climate scientist
however, i believe with fairly solid evidence that if the sun were to cease the earth, including the climate would be much colder
i also read that greenhouse gases in our atmoshere prevent "the mystery heat" from radiating back out into space
of course i didn't read the link provided below or much of this thread
"ain't nobody got time for that"
i'm not a climate scientist
however, i believe with fairly solid evidence that if the sun were to cease the earth, including the climate would be much colder
i also read that greenhouse gases in our atmoshere prevent "the mystery heat" from radiating back out into space
of course i didn't read the link provided below or much of this thread
"ain't nobody got time for that"
Just a thought, if global warming were mainly driven by the sun, wouldn't the correct response be to double down on all efforts to REDUCE human-induced climate forcing?
Otherwise we are just making a bad situation worse. Kind of like not slowing down the Titanic.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Feb 13, 2026 - 9:40am
VV wrote:
This will be one of the biggest stains on Trumpâs already tarnished legacy.
The big F*CK YOU to future generationsâ¦
Another in a seemingly never-ending series of hoaxes. Grifters abound. Fortunately we have a President dedicated to exposing them all! Clearing the field . . . er . . . the slate?
