Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

bloonail t1_iv06mug wrote

Reply to comment by OneSpaceTwo in ‘Carbon timebomb’: climate crisis threatens to destroy Congo peatlands by sector3011

Word soup does not compensate for never actually studying this phenomena. What you're really saying is these are special times and the regular processes should be ignored. Lets all worship clickbait alarmism.

−5

Graekaris t1_iv0fmdf wrote

You're wrong. A cycle in balance can be pushed out of equilibrium. This is how mass extinctions have occurred in the past. The difference is that this time we're the perturbation rather than an asteroid or volcanism etc.

4

bloonail t1_iv30bph wrote

I just found one of you bttsurfies got my comment removed on the basis that its anti-science. Yes. large scale intrusions can and do temporarily modify the climate. They can push a possible path into more common usage. These factors do not obliviate the influences of long term climate change.

1

OneSpaceTwo t1_iv4igf9 wrote

Word soup? How do you know what I've studied?

No, regular processes shouldn't be ignored, but regular earth-solar cycles aren't the only game in town. There are the oceans, land masses, soil chemistry, ice cover, flora and fauna, and all the interactions and feedbacks associated with these things. Climate cycles change and even break for different reasons. Continents reorganize the face of the earth. Organisms evolve that produce oxygen. Over-evolved apes dig fossil fuels from hundreds of millions of years ago out of the ground and dump it in the atmosphere. The geological record is full of interesting, baffling changes. Predictable cycles are always shifting subtly for a period of time then radically reorganizing. You can't just point to the most basic earth-sun cycles and assume everything is caused by them. If you read a climate science textbook you will discover this. Ruddimans Earth's Climate Past and Future is a pretty awesome and accessible overview.

1

bloonail t1_iv4ju62 wrote

You didn't study climate science. Everything you know is from what you've read online through click-bait and filled in with a bit of wikipedia.

1

OneSpaceTwo t1_iv4kqxl wrote

OK, I guess I'll throw away my fake masters degree in atmospheric and oceanic science from the University of Wisconsin Madison.

1

bloonail t1_iv4kxg8 wrote

You don't have a Master's degree. You can't organize your thoughts to exclude nonsense when you're discussing functional relationships of dynamic things.

1

OneSpaceTwo t1_iv4ltjw wrote

An example would be helpful

1

bloonail t1_ivmmmwm wrote

You're tossing all sorts of bits of climate basics into the equation. Its the Chewbacca defense. Meanwhile the Saharan forcing has well understood factors. Its not wrong to mention them- how much sun reaching the ground has a delayed but strong effect. There are a lot of papers that search for humanities effect. None are compelling. Maybe the 'humanity-did-it' thing isn't well understood. Maybe guessing about how we effect it might turn out to be the opposite.

Work from the known to introduce exceptions. Don't dismiss the real simply because it fits poorly.

1

OneSpaceTwo t1_ivnpqnm wrote

You seem to be arguing against things I never said. Of course we can't dismiss solar forcing, it has a major influence on the system. But you want to reduce everything to it. Humans also aren't solely responsible for a great deal of historical climate change (many other natural factors are at play, some of which I mentioned before). However, if we rely on "the known" as you prefer, like basic chemistry and physics of energy transfer, we can predict the effects of dumping a crap load of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (capturing more energy, i.e. heating the atmosphere, on average). You accuse me of oversimplifying things, yet that's what you're doing. You accuse me of being an armchair commentator that hasn't studied enough, yet why do I have the feeling that it is you who are basing your beliefs solely on internet articles and hearsay?

1

bloonail t1_ivqkrqh wrote

I'm not arguing against what you are saying. You are not constructing an argument. Stating a bunch of climate factoids then adding- but its different now because..<<< what>>> . That's not an argument.

1