Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814
If you look at the global temperatures of this planet over the last million years, you will notice that the planet oscillates by about 12-20 degrees Celsius. Quite reliably, in fact.
You will also see massive, rapid spikes in warming for 5-10,000 years, followed by periods of cold (as low as eight degrees below ‘modern normal’) which last 50-90,000 years.
There have been four times in the last 500,000 years where global temperatures reached higher than they are today, and in each case, a 50,000+ year period of extreme cold occurred directly after.
We happen to be at the very end of one of these rapid warming spikes - maybe we have hundreds of years left, maybe thousands - who can say. I’ve heard that by 2200, Alberta is going to be closer to Northern California, climatologically speaking.
What I would say is, being able to grow crops at scale indoors/with genetic modification to adapt them better to changing environments, and an expertise in the extraction of fuel in extreme cold environments might be a useful knowledge set to have in the next 100,000 years. (And also, advanced solar technology - it all works together.)
That, and trying to make any scientific conclusions, much less formulate global policy, based on a 200 year sample size of rising temperatures (during the middle of a warming period) seems, at best, misguided.
|
If this "analysis" was correct, most climate scientists would agree with it. But they don't. And no, it's not because of some "massive globalist conspiracy". It's because they understand this topic far better than those who dabble in climate change denial.
If spreading this stuff makes you feel great about yourself, hey, you do you. Meanwhile, I'll continue to listen to the experts who actually know wtf they are talking about.