Economy 53,220 Posted December 9, 2019 Author Share Posted December 9, 2019 20 hours ago, Taide said: Interesting. I still refuse to believe humans are 100% responsible for climate change. I remember reading an article(s) about how our earth it currently ''rebounding'' from a ice age as the graphic below shows. Humans are main reason why global change is happening so rapidly in the past few centuries, but I feel like some scientist over exaggerate that. There are cycles within cycles... We are currently still in a type of ice age that we are warming up from but that makes many many thousands of years Within those thousands of years there's shorter smaller ups and downs over decades or even a few centuries While the very long term trend is to warm up... Many scientists think over the last 70 years (since 1950) there should of been a slight cooling Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bionic 50,112 Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 28 minutes ago, Economy said: The OP literally explains it It still doesn't make sense...maybe I've misunderstood Humans being sole cause of global warming would equal 100%. The article takes some deduction for some natural actions which have slowed global warming...so the volcanoes blocking sunlight for example might minus 10%. If human impact remained the same it would equal 90%. Its saying human impact is so significant that it is overriding that 10% bringing it back over 100%... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PartySick 175,336 Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 Not surprised. We've also been directly responsible for 60% of animal life going extinct since 1970. We're literally causing a mass extinction event and if we don't get our sh*t together, our names are going to be on that list too. Whimsical bitch Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giskardsb 12,565 Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 12 minutes ago, bionic said: It still doesn't make sense...maybe I've misunderstood Humans being sole cause of global warming would equal 100%. The article takes some deduction for some natural actions which have slowed global warming...so the volcanoes blocking sunlight for example might minus 10%. If human impact remained the same it would equal 90%. Its saying human impact is so significant that it is overriding that 10% bringing it back over 100%... no, some of them are saying that we would actually be in a global cooling phase if not for human intervention. That is why it's above 100%. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Economy 53,220 Posted December 9, 2019 Author Share Posted December 9, 2019 18 hours ago, March34th said: literally everything in the context of the title of the post. For some reason most people who seem to be annoying with being outspoken about why they believe global warming "isn't real" are straight, cis-het white men. the sky is grey out today but I didn't make it so 18 hours ago, March34th said: imagine thinking I'm straight bashing for making a dark joke that is sadly rooted in fact. Anyways let's be positive and stream MAGDALENE by FKA twigs But it doesn't mean the majority of straight men think this way if u made a negative stereotypes joke against a female or minorities i wonder who ud take it Just because straight white men may have the most social priveledged doesn't mean standards should be totally different for how much bashing ur allowed to do If u did a random sample of how many straight men believe global warming is a hoax I'm sure it would be a pretty slim minority Old politicians don't necessarily reflect the general population Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Economy 53,220 Posted December 9, 2019 Author Share Posted December 9, 2019 53 minutes ago, bionic said: It still doesn't make sense...maybe I've misunderstood Humans being sole cause of global warming would equal 100%. The article takes some deduction for some natural actions which have slowed global warming...so the volcanoes blocking sunlight for example might minus 10%. If human impact remained the same it would equal 90%. Its saying human impact is so significant that it is overriding that 10% bringing it back over 100%... What? Now I'm confused the way u worded it If ur saying in terms of it being fully man made yeah it can only be fully our fault which can't go 100% But it's talking about the amount of warming... The amount of warming that we blame ourselves for actually isn't all the warming because there's natural cooling that offsets some of that So if Earth has warmed up 1.3C but we actually warmed it up in total by 1.5C because there was 0.2C in natural cooling... Our net warming impact is greater than the warming we measured That's what it means. At least some estimates say that anyway Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.99c40bc2a10ded8236a48b4fe15c6be8.jpg)
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.