Proponents of solar geoengineering believe that blanketing our sky with aerosols will save the planet, reducing sunlight levels and stopping the warming that has whipped many climate change alarmists into such a frenzy. As the debate continues over the finer points of global warming, there is one thing that scientists are pretty sure of: Artificially cooling the planet using solar geoengineering would have serious repercussions for our planet if it were to suddenly come to a stop.
The idea behind geoengineering is to spray sulfur dioxide into our atmosphere using airplanes. The clouds it forms would theoretically reflect sunlight back into space and offset any rises in global temperature, much like what happens with volcanic eruptions. Indeed, it was inspired by the fact that the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 in the Philippines, which blasted 15 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, was the only act in recent years to make a dent in the rise of global warming. It’s believed to be responsible for cooling global temperatures by as much as 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit in the two years following the blast.
Imitating this action, the theory goes, would help keep rising temperatures in check. Even if such as solution were ever put into place, however, scientists are warning that it would be too dangerous to ever stop it.
That’s because intentionally cooling the earth would mask the additional warming greenhouse gases produce. In a study published in Nature Ecology & Evolution, researchers used computer models to envision what might happen if geoengineering brought about climate cooling and also what might occur if it were to suddenly stop. They used a scenario where planes would spray five million tons of the sulfur dioxide annually into the Earth’s upper atmosphere at the equator for the course of 50 years. Under their model, the sulfuric acid cloud would be evenly distributed between the Southern and Northern Hemisphere.
They found that should geoengineering come to a grinding halt for whatever reason, a very rapid warming would take place. Some areas would see temperature hikes at rates that are two to four times faster than the historical average.
Animals and plants would have to migrate to new areas, which would fragment ecosystems and drive some species toward extinction. Tropical forest fires would rise as rain is reduced across Northern Europe, Asia and the Amazon. Species would have to travel in one direction in order to maintain the levels of precipitation they were used to while going in another one to find the temperatures they have grown accustomed to. This would place areas rich in biodiversity, such as the Amazon basin and tropical oceans, at tremendous risk.
Impossible to rule out someone abruptly stopping geoengineering
Although it wouldn’t be in anyone’s best interest to stop it once it did get underway, there is no guaranteeing that all parties with the power to stop it would act appropriately.
The study’s co-author, Alan Robock, said: “If geoengineering ever stopped abruptly, it would be devastating, so you would have to be sure that it could be stopped gradually, and it is easy to think of scenarios that would prevent that.”
According to the Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative’s Janos Pasztor, it’s not implausible to believe that a particular country, group of countries, or even a wealthy individual could one day decide to deploy solar engineering, creating the type of quick start and stop that would put so much of the planet at risk. The plan to pump the atmosphere with aerosols, it seems, is far too risky to be the answer that so many people want to believe that it is.
Follow more news on geoengineering at Geoengineering.news.
Sources for this article include:
by JD Heyes of Natural News
(Natural News) For some people, it doesn’t matter how often former Vice President Al Gore has been wrong in his dire predictions of planetary demise, thanks to human-caused “global warming” and “climate change.” They’ll believe him no matter what, until the day they die (from natural causes, of course, not from planetary demise due to “global warming” and “climate change”).
But for those of you who like and appreciate honesty from politicians and public figures, you have long given up any hope that Gore is anything other than a hapless, feckless Alt-Left partisan when it comes to his environmental activism.
That said, our job is to set the record straight, which is why we found it prudent to remind our readers that roughly nine years ago today, Gore predicted that many of you were going to be swallowed up by rising sea waters caused from tons of melting ice.
Needless to say, that didn’t happen.
In January 2006, Al Gore claimed that “within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return” and “a true planetary emergency” due to human-caused global warming.
Again in 2009, Gore told an audience in Copenhagen, Denmark, that there was a “75 percent chance” that during “some summer months” the “polar ice cap” would disappear completely within “five years.”
The claims were tied to his widely-debunked 2006 “documentary” An Inconvenient Truth, in which he won a very politically motivated Nobel Peace Prize. (Remember when Obama won a Nobel after just a few months in office based not on any accomplishments but on what the committee ‘hoped’ he would accomplish?)
As for Gore, nothing this man has said would happen as regards to the earth warming and slipping closer to self-destruction has come true. Nothing.
But that didn’t stop him from releasing a follow-up film to his original ‘documentary’ earlier this year called, An Inconvenient Sequel. “Sooner or later, climate deniers in the GOP will have to confront their willful blindness to the climate crisis,” Gore tweeted.
Right. Perhaps “sooner or later” climate-change and environmental hoaxers will have to confront the fact that most of us are onto them and no longer believe the lies. (Related: U.N. official actually ADMITS that ‘global warming’ is a scam designed to ‘change world’s economic model.’)
And with good reason. Not only has Gore’s wild claims of doomsday been debunked, so have other so-called environmental experts who have similarly predicted doom and gloom.
They include Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich, a longtime environmental icon and author of the 1968 book “The Population Bomb.”
“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Ehrlich confidently predicted in a 1970 issue of Mademoiselle, as reported by Investors Business Daily. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next 10 years.”
He further claimed to readers of The Progressive that same year that between 1980 and 1989, 4 billion people including 65 million Americans would be vanquished in the “Great Die-Off.”
In a 1969 essay called “Eco-Catastrophe!” he wrote that “most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born.”
The fact is, scare-mongers like Ehrlich have cried “Wolf!” so many times that few people believe them anymore. Gore is on that list.
So, too, is S. Dillon Ripley, longtime head of the Smithsonian Institute, who was once cited by Sen. Gaylord Nelson in Look magazine decades ago that, within 25 years, “between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
And so on.
Here are some constants: The climate is always changing, the weather is not the same as climate, and everything Al Gore says about both is wrong.
J.D. Heyes is editor of The National Sentinel and a senior writer for Natural News and News Target.
For more stories like these, visit The Common Sense Show
Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DaveHodges-TheCommonSenseShow/~3/Qsa2TRGrbls/
The issue of climate change often seems to be a race pitting human complacence against the ecological tipping point.
Everyone knows that if the predictions regarding climate change are proven true by actual climate disasters, even climate change deniers will alter their behavior to do anything possible to combat the devastating consequences. But current models suggest that this may be too late: by the time the predicted effects become evident, it will be too late to stop the progression.
This dire predicament led a team of scientists to seek grounds not to despair. In the words of Louis J. Gross,
“It is easy to lose confidence in the capacity for societies to make sufficient changes to reduce future temperatures. When we started this project, we simply wanted to address the question as to whether there was any rational basis for ‘hope’–that is a rational basis to expect that human behavioral changes can sufficiently impact climate to significantly reduce future global temperatures.”
Gross, co-organizer of the Working Group on Human Risk Perception and Climate Change at the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis (NIMBioS) the Working Group, co-authored the paper on this research, Linking models of human behaviour and climate alters projected climate change in the journal Nature.
They created a dynamic model, linking the physical models of climate change with models that factor in human behavior and its contribution to global climate. The uncertainties of the dynamic model remain high, so it is too soon to make any conclusions about how human intervention could impact change. The scientific consensus indicates that climate change is anthropogenic, though, so factoring in human reactions to reduce our impact should not be overlooked.
Giving hope an edge
The research did point to one important way to give hope an edge. Every time a peak weather event raises fears about the potential for more disasters on a warming planet, people make changes to their behaviors. As these fears subside in the return to more normal weather trends, people may also drift back into their old ways.
As a consequence, reversible short-term changes like driving fewer miles or setting the thermostat to an eco-setpoint have less benefits in combating climate change in the long run. Changes with long-term or lasting effects, such as improving insulation or buying a more efficient car, represent a more effective response.
The conclusion? Efforts to educate the public on what they can do to help should leverage these points in time that trigger action, and should emphasize making lasting changes rather than resorting to a temporary feel-better fix that will later be lost to backsliding.
If you could sum up Barack Obama’s legacy as a leader in just one word, it would be “deception.” The Lord of Lies appears to have instructed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) several years back to fabricate statistics about the alleged benefits of his so-called “Clean Power Plan” which, contrary to what the agency under Obama had claimed, would have done absolutely nothing to improve mortality rates in the United States.
Documents obtained by Judicial Watch through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request reveal that the EPA acted misleadingly, at best, when it claimed that as many as 6,600 premature deaths could be avoided by the year 2030, simply by adopting Obama’s anti-fossil fuels agenda.
As it turns out, mandating reductions in carbon dioxide emissions – the holy grail of the man-made climate change agenda – would not actually save the lives of anyone as Obama claimed it would.
Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit against the EPA in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia back in June after the Obama-tainted agency refused to respond to a May 3, 2017, FOIA request seeking clarification on how the agency came up with its earlier assessment under President 44. Judicial Watch specifically requested from the EPA (but did not receive):
“All internal emails or other records explaining, or requesting an explanation of, the EPA’s decision to claim that the Clean Power Plan would prevent between 2,700 to 6,600 premature deaths by 2030.”
After obtaining the documents through court order, Judicial Watch uncovered an email dated June 2, 2014, in which Bloomberg news reporter Mike Dorning had asked EPA officials Matt Lehrich and Thomas Reynolds to clarify whether its figures came from perceived environmental impacts by carbon dioxide, or rather by fine particulate matter and ozone, a.k.a. chemical pollution.
Obama administration’s climate hoax policies had one purpose: to cripple the U.S. and usher in absolute global governance
Neither of the two EPA officials answered the question, instead deflecting the question to Obama-appointed EPA communications staffer Liz Purchia, whose elusive response about “co-benefits” further confounded the issue. In essence, Purchia basically admitted that carbon dioxide has nothing to do with reducing the number of premature deaths, suggesting that the EPA had invented the idea in order to push the Obama’s anti-carbon agenda.
“Judicial Watch has caught the Obama EPA red-handed issuing a series of half-truths and deliberately misleading information – pure propaganda – designed to deceive the American public into accepting its radical environmental agenda,” stated Judicial Watch President, Tom Fitton.
“The documents show the Obama EPA could not demonstrate that carbon dioxide reductions would in fact reduce the number of premature deaths. It is no surprise it took a federal lawsuit to uncover this Obama deceit. We appreciate that the Trump EPA did not drag this litigation out – we hope other Trump officials start finally paying attention to the FOIA law.”
Had it remained in effect, Obama’s Clean Power Plan would have mandated needless new requirements designed to shift energy generation and consumption away from natural coal. Such policy changes would have resulted in the shuttering of hundreds of coal-fired power plants, as well as halted the construction of all new plants, leaving tens of thousands of blue-collar Americans out of work.
The signing of an executive order on March 28 by President Donald Trump, however, put a stop to this agenda. This was followed up by an announcement just a few months later by the President that the United States would no longer participate in the 2015 Paris Climate Accord, another Obama-era deception that would have delivered the final death blow to America in maintaining any semblance of energy self-reliance.
Sources for this article include:
As we now sit in one of the coldest “chill waves” in America’s history, with NYC poised to break the record for the coldest New Year’s Eve ever, it’s noteworthy to recall how all the “climate change” experts used to be global warming alarmists.
Just a few years ago, these global warming experts told us that winter temperatures would get steadily warmer. Snowfall would decrease, and the Earth would become so warm that the ice caps would melt and inundate coastal cities under a tidal wave of rising ocean levels. In reality, however, snow cover has continued to increase since the 1950s, but this didn’t stop mainstream media fake news rags like Newsweek from claiming exactly the opposite.
The IPCC also pushed the global warming narrative in 2001, and Al Gore and other global warming alarmists heaped on terror-scale warnings about melting ice that would drown cities like New York and Miami (as if liquid water instead of frozen ice is somehow bad for the planet…)
“Progressive” science: FAKE the data!
When the scientific data didn’t fit their narrative, of course, they faked the data. Nearly all the data used for so-called “global warming” projections, it turns out, had been dishonestly altered in order to create a “warming trend” where none exists at all. In another example of science hucksterism, global warming alarmists have been caught red-handed faking sea level data in order to falsely support their “rising oceans” narrative. As explained by the NoTricksZone website:
In a new paper published in Earth Systems and Environment this month, Australian scientists Dr. Albert Parker and Dr. Clifford Ollier uncover evidence that Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) overseers appear to have been engaging in the “highly questionable” and “suspicious” practice of adjusting historical tide gauge data to show recent accelerated sea level rise where no such acceleration (or rise) exists.
The authors expose how PSMSL data-adjusters make it appear that stable sea levels can be rendered to look like they are nonetheless rising at an accelerated pace.
This adjustment of tide gauge data to yield a rising sea level trend where none exists is not occasional or episodic. Instead, for every adjustment of raw data analyzed, “the adjustments are always in the direction to produce a large rise in sea level.”
The suspicious perpetuity of this pattern strongly suggests that there is an agenda driving these arbitrary and subjective realignments.
The global warming hoax couldn’t be reconciled with global temperature and ocean level data… so they morphed the science hoax into “climate change”
The problem with the global warming narrative, of course, is that it contradicted the scientific evidence which clearly showed the Earth wasn’t warming as had been frighteningly predicted by apocalyptic global warming alarmists. So they changed the narrative to “climate change,” which is now recognized as one of the most stupid-headed science fails of all time, given that Earth’s climate has always demonstrated rapid change, long before modern humans arrived on the scene. Perhaps that’s why over 31,000 scientists now say global warming is a complete hoax.
Now, thanks to the climate change hoax narrative, a shockingly high percentage of liberals actually believe that there were no forest fires, no hurricanes, no tornadoes, no floods, no droughts and no snow storms before the invention of the combustion engine (and the subsequent burning of fossil fuels). No one has ever told them, for example, that carbon dioxide levels have been over ten times higher than today’s levels throughout Earth’s history. Because of the Left’s runaway science denialism, college students have also been taught that carbon dioxide is a poison rather than plant food. In truth, nearly all plants on Earth consume carbon dioxide as a critical nutrient. Higher CO2 means more rainforests, faster growth of food crops and more “green” planet-wide. Yet stupidly, Leftists have been brainwashed to believe that CO2 is toxic to the planet. (Which just goes to show you how liberalism can convince some people that 1+1 = 5.)
Remember all this as you’re freezing this winter. Also remember that before there was global warming, the status quo nut jobs in the media (and scientific community) were all pushing a “global freezing” narrative. In 1970 the global warming crowd painted an apocalyptic picture of what would happen by the year 2000.
“1) At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind,’” writes RightWingNews.
This hysteria and apocalyptic fear mongering reminds many of the 1970 Earth Day predictions that fizzled like a firecracker:
- End of civilization in 15-30 years
- 100-200 million deaths to starvation yearly for 10 years
- A new ice age by 2000
That article also lists the top 10 Al Gore predictions that collapsed in the wake of reality:
10 years after Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” guilt/fear producing predictions, let’s close by examining just how accurate his “science” proved to be on his way to the bank.
1. Rising Sea Levels – inaccurate and misleading. Al was even discovered purchasing a beachfront mansion!
2. Increased Tornadoes – declining for decades.
3. New Ice Age in Europe – they’ve been spared; it never happened.
4. South Sahara Drying Up – completely untrue.
5. Massive Flooding in China and India – again didn’t happen.
6. Melting Arctic – false – 2015 represents the largest refreezing in years.
7. Polar Bear Extinction – actually they are increasing!
8. Temperature Increases Due to CO2 – no significant rising for over 18 years.
9. Katrina a Foreshadow of the Future – false – past 10 years, no F3 hurricanes; “longest drought ever!”
10.The Earth Would be in a “True Planetary Emergency” Within a Decade Unless Drastic Action Taken to Reduce Greenhouse Gasses – never
As you’re freezing your buns off this Winter, just remember how many global warming charlatans told you the Earth was “warming”
As any rational person has come to realize by now, the global warming narrative was (and is) a complete hoax. The fact that 75% of the continental United States is right now experiencing plunging temperatures is yet another contradiction of the “warming” we were all told would have practically ended Winter by now.
Instead of the warming we were promised by Al Gore, we’re actually getting subzero chills across much of the country. The National Guard has even been mobilized in some areas to deal with the extreme cold and snow fall. How is this possible if the Earth has been “warming” for a couple of decades as Al Gore promised?
As it turns out, Al Gore was lying all along. And in much the same way the left-wing deep state tried to fabricate evidence against Trump (the “Trump Dossier”) to destroy his administration, the left-wing branches of science are faking all the climate science to create a completely false, fabricated “warming trend” that simply doesn’t exist. If the oceans really were rising, after all, scientists wouldn’t have to keep faking the ocean levels data, would they?
Keep all this in mind as you’re trying to stay warm this Winter. You’ve been subjected to a world-class science swindle of epic scale. Carbon dioxide isn’t a planetary poison. Even the EPA chief has now admitted CO2 isn’t the cause of global warming. Ocean levels are not rising at a catastrophic pace, and NASA has even confirmed that ocean levels have been falling for the last two years in some areas. Arctic ice sheets are actually expanding right now, not contracting, and the UN climate change report is now widely recognized as a work of fiction.
Every single thing that status quo science has claimed about climate change has been exhaustively debunked. It was all a farce from the get-go.
Watch my video below to learn more:
9:05 a.m. ET
MICHAEL SMERCONISH: There’s a lot to be said for that which takes place through inaction. Differentiate between action and inaction and what it means for this presidency.
DOUGLAS BRINKLEY, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Well, just take a look at what you said, pulling out of the Paris Accord. Yes, he did that. What does that mean in the end? And it means Donald Trump has turned his back completely on climate change — what history may show as the overridingly important issue of our time. I mean, we’ve got the unusual wildfires, hurricanes, glaciers melting. The planet is really alarmed right now, and Donald Trump decides, “Ah, it doesn’t exist. I don’t want to believe and listen to the scientists.”
So, by that very inaction this year, we’re losing momentum. We’re not educating the society on what to do and make some changes with climate change. I just picked that one — you can go all over and see, you know, he’s gutting the Environmental Protection Agency by 33 percent. Okay, you can save some money right now — you’re also making a little money by mining and leasing of public lands. What does that mean long-term?
What does that mean 100 years from now when we start just willy nilly, you know, desecrating public lands for gouging quick-gain profits? Conservation is always about our children’s children. So there’s a lot that went on this year that I don’t think is going to shine well on history. It will be remembered for Charlottesville, Pocahontas, NFL — issues that divide the nation around race and identity.
What did Donald Trump create this year? What is he going to be remembered for? I mean, John F. Kennedy, his first year in office, Michael, did some bold things. He said we’re going to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade. He started getting money in places like Huntsville, Alabama; and Houston, Texas; infrastructure money on technology that worked down at the space program. Kennedy created his first year the Peace Corps, Alliance for Progress.
What’s Trump known for? All over the world, he’s seen as a bully — that’s the net takeaway at the end of the year — and perhaps a bigot. And so it’s very hard to see why history is going to be shining a flashlight on a President with a 35 percent approval rating, the lowest since polls have been taken. His big home run was a tax bill. That doesn’t really excite people. It is a success at the end of the year, and he did get Gorsuch. But it has been a very rocky first year.
WASHINGTON — Climate change fueled by human activity could boost the frequency and severity of volcanic eruptions, a recent scientific study has found.
The reason: As the planet warms and glacial ice melts, pressure on magma in the earth’s crust is relieved. Less pressure can result in more eruptions.
A team of researchers led by Graeme T. Swindles, an associate professor of Earth system dynamics at the University of Leeds, published the study last month in the journal Geology. They looked at how small changes in glacial ice impacted volcanic activity in Iceland 4,500 to 5,500 years ago — a period in which the earth cooled and glaciers grew. They created a timeline of Iceland’s volcanic activity by studying the amount of ash that fell into peatlands and lakes across Europe, then compare that with glacial ice cover in Iceland.
What they found was that as ice cover increased, volcanic eruptions declined. Likewise, when those same glaciers retreated, volcanic activity picked up.
Ice “can affect magma flow and the voids and gaps in the Earth where magma flows to the surface as well as how much magma the crust can actually hold,” Swindles told Scientific American magazine in an article published Thursday. “After glaciers are removed the surface pressure decreases, and the magmas more easily propagate to the surface and thus erupt.”
The lag time between these climatic events and the change in eruption frequency was around 600 years, according to the findings.
The researchers note in their study that “human-induced climate change is causing rapid melting of ice in many volcanically active regions.” The findings, they say, suggest that the warming that has occurred since the Little Ice Age — a cold period that spanned from around 1300 and 1850 — could, in time, result in stronger, more periodic eruptions.
“I think we can predict we’re probably going to see a lot more volcanic activity in areas of the world where glaciers and volcanoes interact,” including the Pacific Northwest and southern South America, Swindles said.
- This article originally appeared on HuffPost.
Source Article from https://www.yahoo.com/news/climate-change-could-trigger-more-214246222.html
Researchers from the University of Southampton have found ancient evidence suggesting that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere affected climate conditions approximately a hundred million years ago, but these are not the results that modern day climatologists want to hear. Modern climate change studies desperately want to correlate rising carbon dioxide levels with “climate change.” However, it was a lack of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that led to sweeping temperature changes about a million years ago.
The international research team used an “Earth system” model along with geochemical measurements to pinpoint changes in continental ice sheets. This narrowed in on a timeframe when the Earth experienced extreme dips in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. These drops in CO2 coincided with glacial intervals that brought about extremely cold climatic conditions. The conditions lasted around 400,000 years in what is known as the Mid-Pleistocene Transition (MPT) period.
The researchers came across the findings when they discovered abnormal abruptions in the Earth’s Milkovitch Cycles which cycle naturally every 40,000 years. During naturally-occurring Milkovitch Cycles, ice ages are part of a normal cycle caused by regular changes in the way the Earth orbits the sun. These natural cycles are also influenced by the way Earth spins on its axis in relation to the gravitational pull of other planets. Normally these cycles are predictable. The celestial changes cause climate to cycle from frigid glacial intervals where continental ice covers most of North America and Europe, to warm interglacial climates that free up ice in Europe and North America.
The disruption in this natural cycle occurred about a million years ago, altering the Milkovitch Cycle to a pattern of freeze and thaw over a longer time period of 100,000 years. This disruption was observed during a time when carbon dioxide levels were at their lowest. Dr. Tom Chalk of the University of Southampton explained that the Antarctic ice cores showed changes in atmospheric CO2 during this disruption in climate.
“CO2 was low when it was cold during the glacials and it was higher during the warm interglacials – in this way it acted as a key amplifier of the relatively minor climate forcing from the orbital cycles.”
Dr. Chalk noted that the ice core records are only measurable up to 800,000 years ago. In order to study carbon dioxide levels during the transition periods, the team had to devise a technique that examined the boron isotopic composition of the shells of ancient marine fossils. Their best bet was to study tiny marine plankton called “foraminifera.” These plankton once lived near the sea surface and harbored the chemical makeup of their environmental conditions when they swam the seas over a million years ago.
Professor Gavin Foster explained that the research team was able to use boron isotope measurements to obtain variable measurements in atmospheric CO2 from up to 1.1 million years ago. He explained that there were two main differences:
“[F]irstly, during the glacials before the MPT, CO2 did not drop as low as it did in the ice core record after the MPT, remaining about 20-40 parts per million (ppm) higher. Secondly, the climate system was also more sensitive to changing CO2 after the MPT than before.”
Looking further, NERC Independent Research Fellow Mathis Hain used a biogeochemical model to determine why glacial aged CO2 declined by 20-40 ppm. Their models determined that the lack of CO2 during the MPT coincided with a drop-off in dust to the Southern Ocean. During the normal glacial periods in the Milkovitch cycle, higher concentrations of dust brought necessary levels of iron to the Southern Ocean, encouraging the growth of phytoplankton. During the time-frame when there was less CO2 in the atmosphere, there wasn’t enough iron or phytoplankton and this locked more CO2 away in the deep ocean.
In other words, climate change during this era was caused by a complex series of factors including ocean currents, iron content of dust returning to the Southern Ocean, the subsequent loss of phytoplankton growth, the locking away of CO2 in the ocean bottoms, and the lack of CO2 returning to Earth’s atmosphere. The researchers commented that the less dusty climate conditions after this altered MPT could be caused by ice sheet formation and atmospheric circulation, too.
The complexity of the Earth’s climate, its natural cycles, and its relationship with celestial cycles should not be trivialized just to advance a sensationalist climate change agenda that blames human activity for the demise of the planet. For the most part, the Earth’s climate is beyond man’s control. (Related: Major climate change study just confirmed the climate was changing dramatically in the 1800s, long before the invention of the combustion engine.)