Walruzuma

Walruzuma t1_j1wmdkj wrote

Sounds like a car that won't pass at all under the new standards.

EDIT: Cars with that much rust showing have places you'd never think to look, but under the 2022 new standard the inspection shop has to photograph and upload to the DMV...

9

Walruzuma t1_ixzxsp1 wrote

A generational farmer in the US started when? Early 1800's? Just as we were coming out of the little ice age? The climate has been warming since then. Since a couple decades BEFORE the industrial revolution. Sea levels have risen since that period and populations have boomed. Why? Because the climate is more conducive to growing food to sustain a larger population. Sea levels during the last full blown ice age (12000 ish years ago) were at the continental shelf of each continent, some 200-2000 feet farther out than they are now. Where was the population growth with all that 'tillable land'? It didn't exist because even though there was more land it was too cold for food species to thrive. How do you think a population can endeavor something as huge as the industrial revolution? How is it possible? It's because food was becoming more abundant. Some portion of the population can be dedicated to food while other subsets can do things like engineering and building because they aren't spending their time looking for food. Just like it was during the Renaissance. But then the temp dropped 4 degrees and things were thrown back and we end up with the plagues of the Medieval era. There was no food so populations were weak. It's astonishing to me how people can't think critically for themselves any more. They lap up 'expert' narratives that in and of themselves make sense only through the narrow view of their expertise. The big picture almost ALWAYS tells a much different story.

1

Walruzuma t1_ixxzmir wrote

Not yet. The earth has at least 2 degrees to go to hit the temps of less than 1000 years ago! You must have a limited mental capacity, so give me about 350 years and YES. I'm a buyer. That's what the normal climate cycles of earth tell me the seas will again be receding.

−1

Walruzuma t1_ixxyxe8 wrote

I'll agree, that's a 3rd grade understanding. Because Graduate School will teach you that increased carbon in the atmosphere will increase the number and size of plants. This is real and if you deny this, you have no merit.

EDIT: Also, your understanding of how all this works is clearly from a Politicians syllabus, not a Scientists.

−8

Walruzuma t1_ixxv6hv wrote

Please define 'climate change deniers'. There are very few people who would deny the climate was different during the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous. The question is, whether the population has been so brainwashed by media and political agendas to believe the last 150 ish years is anything other than coming out of 'The Little Ice Age', a period that culminates 'The Renaissance' where temperatures were over 2 degrees higher than today.

−7

Walruzuma t1_ixxthzh wrote

Actually not true. Our reporting on it has increased. Storms are great for the media. Lemmings eat that shit up. Let's talk hurricanes. We've had decent satellite since the mid 80's. But if you look at landfall data, which would have been the only indicator prior to that period, the 80's and 90's were a minimum period. Landfalls were less than at any time on record since 1900. Yet, since then they have increased, right? WRONG. The total number has increased, because we see more from the sky. But, at best, the annual number for CAT 2+ that have made landfall is at best even. We just hear about every named storm that years ago no one knew about.

−1

Walruzuma t1_ixxsx9k wrote

I'm not denigrating. I'm elucidating. The US Federal Government has prioritized CO2 and CO2 only research. Thus, these 'Scientists' are narrowly focused and thus apply a 'constant' to a plethora of other real factors, such as solar activity, earth magnetic shifts, etc. etc. I'm sure you have already studied and understand each of the 100+ discounted factors. Have fun skiing.

1

Walruzuma t1_ixxrohm wrote

I don't deny there is a climate, and I certainly do not deny it changes. I do deny the political and media NARRATIVES of climate change, which make absolutely NO SENSE in the records we actually can put a name to. Most 'Climate Scientists' use very vague interpretations of millenia old ice cores. I would argue those are deliberately ignorant.

0

Walruzuma t1_ixxr2sz wrote

Our first snowfall was right on time.... It should have been later, considering we are still coming out of 'The Little Ice Age' which ended in the mid 1800's. We have more than 2 degrees to go to reach the AVERAGE global temp of the Renaissance.

1

Walruzuma t1_ixxqkpw wrote

This is a terrible take. Humans have done substantially better during warming periods (the Renaissance coming out of the Dark Ages, when Global temps were 2 degrees higher than today) and our current period starting around 1850 when we started coming out of 'The Little Ice Age'. Increased temperatures release non saline water from Ice Caps and increased tillable land mass. If you understand what it takes to feed people, you understand these are not specifically unwanted attributes.

−4

Walruzuma t1_ixxp7x0 wrote

Replying to my own comment here:

The written/retrievable historical record indicates that the times of greatest achievement, such as the Renaissance and our current situation, are when the planet is coming out of cooling periods (the dark ages and the little ice age, respectively). Did you know that the average world temperature was more than 2 degrees higher during the renaissance than it is today? The Media and Politicians are lying to you. Learn and lead. Don't believe and follow.

EDIT: Had to add 'and Politicians are' as that is the root of misinformation.

0

Walruzuma t1_ixxookg wrote

Global cooling would be more devastating to world populations, food and water supplies than global warming. Change my mind.

EDIT: Interesting people are just downvoting and not trying to change my mind. Sorry folks. Uninformed Straw Man arguments won't change my mind.

−7