What If Global Warming Is Actually Part of a Natural Cycle?

[rangerrebew]

 
What If Global Warming Is Actually Part of a Natural Cycle?
Story by Lorand Pottino • 2h

Earth Has Experienced Natural Climate Shifts for Millennia
 
Throughout Earth’s long history, the climate has swung between frigid ice ages and balmy warm periods. For the last 800,000 years, scientists have tracked these changes using ice cores, tree rings, and sediment records.

According to NASA and NOAA, these shifts were driven by natural forces like volcanic eruptions, solar cycles, and changes in the planet’s orbit. The last major ice age ended about 12,000 years ago, ushering in the stable Holocene epoch we live in now.

During these periods, temperature changes unfolded slowly, often taking thousands of years to play out. These natural cycles have shaped everything from the rise and fall of ancient forests to the migration of human populations.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/what-if-global-warming-is-actually-part-of-a-natural-cycle/ss-AA1DYZ5j?ocid=widgetonlockscreen&cvid=a7186c48f82045ae891d4f5b3cfee4d2&ei=52

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Could be, could be at least partially human caused too. Dunno... doesn't mean it's the end of the world like they like to say.

[DefiantMassRINO]

Climate Heretic!  Climate Witch!  Burn him at the stake!

Next, they'll tell us that the Sun does not revolve around the Earth!  Blasphemy!

[verga]

We have gone through no less than 8 ice ages. Some major, some minor. The last one ended about 50-60 years ago.

[The_Reader_David]

It could be, or it could be partly natural and partly human-caused (and not necessarily via greenhouse gas emissions if the latter -- land use changes change albedo, cleaning up jet fuel to take out sulphur decreased cloud formation,...). 

This is why the correct response to the indisputable fact the climate changes over time (both locally and globally) is not to chase net-zero (which is only useful if (1) it really is being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and (2) we haven't passed some "tipping point", i.e. moved into a different part of the phase space for the huge chaotic dynamical system that describes the earth's climate so that reaching net-zero wouldn't help anyway), but rather to do things to make humanity more adaptable to whatever climatic changes are coming.  Things like

(1) Building more nuclear power plants (any version of more extreme climate will oblige us to use more energy, and nuclear is the only source that can deliver enough besides fossil fuels, and if the change are extreme enough, the only bar none).
(2) Ag research on crops and farming techniques that will let us grow food in more extreme climates (meaning hotter and wetter, hotter and drier, colder and wetter and colder and drier than where we grow food now).  Drier would be really helpful now, seeing that the Ogala aquifer that provides water for irrigation in the grain-growing regions of the Great Plains is being used up faster than it's being replenished with current corps and currently used irrigation techniques
(3) Providing money to implement such improvements to agriculture.
(4) Improvements to the efficiency of energy usage (same reason as (1)).

[DB]

Short answer.

Adapt.

That's what all life has to do. Nothing is static and is always changing throughout the universe.

[Free Vulcan]

This is the Achilles heel of Western science and it's total reliance on the scientific method. It's great for the chalk board, the lab, beakers, test tubes, lab coats and what can be proven in the moment.

It doesn't do so well with applied science, things that happen over long periods with many variables and covering great spaces or distances. Especially long cycles like climate or the behavior of celestial bodies like say black holes.

In facte the AGW crowd has bamboozled alot of people by trying to use the former to determine the latter, and make predictions over cherry picked evidence and concocted theory.

Fact is, the Earth is subject to long cycles of many thousands of years, for example just a few thousand years ago many things looked different, like warmer temps, higher seas, different precipitation patterns, most of which we don't understand and often completely refute the AGW fashionable theories of the moment.

[Smokin Joe]

Could be, could be at least partially human caused too. Dunno... doesn't mean it's the end of the world like they like to say.

Those nasty cave men, driving around in their SUVs. It's all their fault we're not under a mile of ice! Damn them, anyway!

[240B]

The Global Warming cult naming CO2 as a pollutant was retarded.
Plants live on CO2! More CO2, more plant life. No CO2, no life of any kind.

[DefiantMassRINO]

Global Climate Change predictions are not based on science nor the scientific method.

Global Climate Change is a political, Marxist agenda to deconstruct the West to make way for the Chinese Communist Party to dominate the world.

Global Climate Change predictions are based off incomplete computer models based upon speculative algorithms using incomplete, inaccruate, or fabricated data to arrive at a pre-determined outcome.

Global Climate Change frauds need to create a false sense of immediate, imminent doomsday crisis, emergency, or calamity to avoid independent peer review scrutiny.  Global Climate Change fraudsters are used car salesmen with PhD's and tenure.

[Smokin Joe]

Well, the climate changed for most of 4.6 Billion years without any help from humans.  Since we've been keeping track, the temperature has gone up and down. Even our best means of measurements prior to that indicate the temperature went up and down. Thinking that in the last 200 years we have caused the temperature to climb is just a bit looney.

It's just self-induced species centric egotism in an age of misplaced guilt (for political and pecuniary benefit to a few).