darkknightkryta said:
Is that were it is now? 20 years ago they were all over the planet. Or so they say. Again, no one likes to talk about it anymore. I said there are other factors. You're also forgetting that when the dinosaurs were running around, CO2 levels were way higher. And what pre-tell are these "analysis" of ice sheets telling them? That they're made of water and have mixtures of other elements? I've seen articles and reports changing their tune every decade. Only thing I've learned from them is that when they want more funding, they make more buzz words. We literally don't have a concrete idea of what weather should be. We're still in an ice age, the ice sheets grow and recede regardless of humans being around or not. They're receding now, does that mean they're supposed to be increasing instead? We don't know. They're also conveniently leaving other external factors out, sun's gotten hotter for instance, or the fact that we're due for another pole change. What's the point I'm trying to make? There are a lot of factos to climate change, we're a small part of the issue, or a big part of the issue. If we knew how the weather "should be" instead of what it "can be" then I'd be more inclined to agree with scientists. They've also lost my trust with all the greed around them. |
I'm trying to be as friendly as possible while being honest but anyways. Who is they? You keep saying they... First of all, the hole in the ozone layer has always been in the north pole. There is ZERO scientific documentation factualy stating that there are other holes in the ozone layer. But, of course, the general public will believe media outlets and newspapers written by *gasp* non-scientists who parade around with the headlines that look the most attractive (typically doom and gloom). This leads to confusion with most people not knowing what to believe. Me? I steer away from word of mouth, newspapers or gossip, I'll hear it or read it but its most likely just talk without substance as far as most studies of science goes. But at the same time it can be very insightful. I go with science because it is self correcting and performed by people who are incredibly diverse and absolutely love their job. I could go on and on but I just wanted to make it clear that their is a difference between 'they' and scientists.
My initial response was more collaborative to yours, not a direct offense to your statements. I did not 'forget' to mention the jurassic era having multiple amounts of co2 in the atmosphere because that was not my point. I made a historical comparison to Earth and Venus and then stated that IF we were to get enough co2 into our atmosphere we would then turn into a Venus. I also stated that it wasn't happening right now but at our current pace, by 2100 we would have FAR surpassed the amount of co2 in the Earth's atmosphere during the Jurassic era. Grade 10 calcualtions can lead us to these facts.
But yes you are 100% correct that we don't know what weather patterns should be. We also don't know if the ice caps should be receding or expanding, but that's also not the point. We would assume that on a stable planet (if there is such a thing) ice sheets would shrink or grow at the same pace relative to time of recession or expansion. Here on Earth they aren't, not even close. Scientists can calculate how old minerals are within the ice-caps/sheets. Within the past 50 years scientists are finding substances that are well over 100,000 years old and as one year passes another 1000 years is added to the latter numeral. Its not the receeding nature so much as the pace of recession.
