reply to post by Kali74
It's odd as my thinking has evolved on this and really over just a matter of weeks. It's also rare but sometimes amazing for what I find when
jumping behind a media story to go digging for the source and basic foundation stuff. Usually, there isn't much to find..but just occasionally, there
is enough to make for an epiphany moment. Climate Change has been an example of that and one of just a couple in recent memory for me.
The above has been true despite being in an enviro science class that is more mushy propaganda ..and I mean factually inaccurate stuff here.. than
science. I'll benefit from the science of it and I'll benefit from the tours of infrastructure like the waste and power plants. It's important to
know how that whole process really (as in...there it physically is to view and understand) works. What is odd tho, is most of what I've come to focus
on here and learn more about is self taught and from scientific/boring/dry levels of reading. That's where the most interesting stuff is, as this
thread tends to show, IMO.
We're on the same side of the street, even if we're now on distant ends of it, in very real/figurative ways.
I don't think there is any doubt on the climate change now, with change being the operative word here. I've been debating the other side of it long
enough to well know the patterns to definitively say more than 'well, it's cooling there BECAUSE it's warm over here and warming causes cooling'
just aren't there. We're seeing extremes on both ends and violence in weather is also remarkable. It's also coming with what is likely natural
cycling ...tho a few more years to be certain if that's passing or not. The drought conditions we're seeing mimic the 1930's and other clear
periods both before and since.
What I'm really interested in is keeping it real and keeping it open to figuring out what, if anything, can be isolated as causes, and maybe
something done about. Carbon is an issue, as I noted before, and especially since we're determined to burn out the planets lungs. Carbon (and water)
also deposits from space dust....were you aware of that? The research from the University of Hawaii and other Space/Climate research sources has been
breaking across the last month or so for what degree and definitive nature of the issue. ......it means Earth isn't a closed system to anything like
the degree we've often assumed it is from the dumbed down public material.
Speaking of dumbed down...
Most predictions say the warming of the planet will continue and likely will accelerate. Oceans will likely continue to rise as well, but
predicting the amount is an inexact science. A recent study says we can expect the oceans to rise between 2.5 and 6.5 feet (0.8 and 2 meters) by 2100,
enough to swamp many of the cities along the U.S. East Coast. More dire estimates, including a complete meltdown of the Greenland ice sheet, push sea
level rise to 23 feet (7 meters), enough to submerge London and Los Angeles.
Most people would call that a reasonable source and decent for accuracy. It's such crap it floats higher than their ocean rise, quite frankly.
Global Sea Rise Simulation Map
This is just one example, but most of the general public would call NatGeo a solid source. Whatever we may feel, it's a reasonable statement for the
general public. So when they read that 7 Meters is enough to submerge Los Angeles and London, they believe it's a reasonable possibility, if nothing
more. They're simply wrong. The Sim data above is based on simple elevation and math with data from NASA. Here is what it shows for Los Angeles in 3
(Present Day - 0 Meter Rise)
(7 Meter / 23 Feet)
(40 Meter / 131 Feet)
It's not that sea levels may not or are not rising. They may well be (It's still in 'studys show' stage, but I'll grant it's happening and has
been at least 100 years). It's not that rising sea levels won't be a bad thing. They will be. Ask Tonga or the Phillippines, for example. They
won't fare as well as Los Angeles with far lesser rise.
The above is where I think the biggest breakdown in the whole debate comes, and it's both sides...the more I get into really just reading facts and
basic 'it is what it is' results to base my own judgements on. Both sides fudge results for how they are presented
. Neither side is innocent
when it comes to ignoring some factors while focusing on others as if whatever the topic is (Carbon, Methane, Nitrous or other direct factors) has
only one main cause or issue.
Carbon figures in..it's just the lesser for direct impact and frankly, lesser we can directly do something about. There are, in my opinion, more
dangerous and more prolific gasses which are not natural to find in the sheer scale they are produced now. Some natural..most not, and with ripple
effects into other processes that are also visible, IMO, and support the fact the balance is blown.
So it's the lack of scope locking to carbon and using real and supportable stuff I'm most focused on myself because the more that people are finding
in cutting research in this area, the more it's looking like that comfy period of calm while the balance shifts may not last much longer. Colder
Winters, Hotter Summers ..and storm warmings to really pay attention to all inbetween. That too, is just another interpretation, of course.