SparrowHawk
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2009
- Messages
- 7,824
- Reaction score
- 2,707
The chart goes back 600,000 years.
Not sure where you are going with the polar bear tangent???
NASA is in the business of junk science now?
Living in the Houston area, I know many NASA employees. Progressive/liberal they are not.
Would you like a slice of the moon for your ham sandwich?
even NASA is uncertain as the causation. All you have is a history of temperatures. So what.
Although this wasn’t mentioned during the program, several interglacials before the Eemian were also 1-3 degrees Celsius, or perhaps even more, warmer than today’s “unprecedented” temperatures. During the Eemian, according to the 2007 IPCC report itself, sea levels were 4-6 metres (14-20 feet) higher than today’s, and in previous interglacials sea levels may have been 15 metres (50 feet) higher.
Glacials and interglacials over 700,000 years. Interglacials are above the line.
Again, no human influences caused these previous interglacial rises in temperatures and sea levels. So, why would we be foolish enough to believe that rising temperatures and sea levels in our interglacial, the Holocene, are anything but natural as well, although we may be accelerating warming slightly with our carbon emissions?
That is, sea levels may rise, say, two metres in 1,000 years rather than 1,100, due to human influence. Surely humans a thousand years from now can handle two metres of sea level increase, rather than the, say, 1.75 metres that would otherwise have occurred.
The program noted that polar bears evolved about 150,000 years ago out of brown (grizzly) bears. In other words, they evolved to exploit glacial, Arctic conditions just before the Eemian warming. So, how did they survive the lack of Arctic ice during the Eemian? And does their survival then offer clues to how the bears will survive low-ice conditions in our interglacial?
The Rest of the Article