Sea-level doom from Antarctic melting

You wouldn't have to go back that far. I think they're finding evidence of a gigantic flood about 8000 years ago, that filled the basin that is now the Black Sea.

 

I think you might be off a bit; 700 million years ago, there were no dinosaurs or even any complex life.

 

66 million years ago the dinosaurs got hit with a meteor 6 miles in diameter going 65,000 mph. 112 mile diameter crater 19 miles deep. Covered with sediment today, discovered by oil exploration, the Chicxulub crater in Yucatan. 600 mph shock wave reached middle of the USA. 500 ft high tidal wave went all the way to Africa. Magnitude 10 earthquakes worldwide. Blast energy estimated at 72 trillion tons of TNT, 25 trillion metric tons of excavated material was ejected into the atmosphere by the blast . Molten rocks were splattered out into space and fell back to earth, some even escaped earth orbit. Firestorm burned 70% of plant life. Smoke and debris blocked sun for 5 to 10 years. 75% of animals extinct. Evidenced by a dark band of burn debris worldwide, the K-T boundary layer.

 

I did not know that.

 

Do you mean change to the tilt of the axis of rotation? I googled that the other day, and AI summary said it does change, mentioned glacier melt and intensive pumping of ground water reserves as factors.

 

You don't think fact would get in the way of a good B/S story did you, never has before, doubt it will in the future.

Those that believe and push these stories show a major flaw in their critical thinking education .....

T1 Terry

 

The shift in the magnetic poles has also been blamed, it causes the sun's active and calm cycles, maybe it could affect the earth's climate, or moving all the coal from one side of the planet to the other, only to burn it and make it lighter .... or is it the one thing they can measure, percentage of carbon and methane in the atmosphere and the corelation to rising sea temperatures and sea levels ....... but who would believe something that can actually be measure against wild theories born out of greed to not change the status quo and interrupt their money generating efforts they spent so much establishing and then denying they were causing any harm ..... sound familiar, sort of straight out of the tobacco industries' play book .... or is that still in denial as well .....

Very hard to change anyone's deep down belief that they are smarter than everyone else ......

T1 Terry

 

I doubt that all the resources the world could muster,
would be capable of putting the world's climate into stasis.

 

Keep in mind, A I just collects all the online data it can find and makes it's predictions from there. There are more armchair experts that make online posts than those who actually know what they are talking about.

References to astrological measured changes would verify a shift of the earth's wobble that creates the season changes .... they seem to be rather thin on the reference list ......

T1 Terry

 

stasis
/ˈsteɪsɪs,ˈstasɪs/

noun
formal•technical

1. 1.
   a period or state of inactivity or equilibrium.
   "long periods of stasis"
2. 2.
   civil strife.

Civil strife is something the world can generate without much effort.

Inactivity would be .... what exactly?

So that leave equilibrium, how would that work, the climate in different regions of even a single country aren't in equilibrium, how could the climate in the whole world ever be in equilibrium? ....... it would certainly either end the ice caps and the permafrost, or we all freeze to death and there is no vegetation either, so we would starve if we didn't freeze ......

Returning the climate to what it was previous to the industrial revolution, possibly achievable if the whole world was to work together, the likeliness of that ever happening ....... I believe no further comments are needed on that topic ...

T1 Terry

 

I have seen fantastic changes to the way we manage the environment over the last 50-60 years. That gives me great hope that we will address the problem of global warming by getting the carbon cycle under control.

But by no means do I believe that we will be able to lock the climate into a static, unchanging state.

 

The renewable powered carbon removal systems are already available, there is this one, and the saber method of converting hydrogen to methane saber method for converting hydrogen to methane - Google Search We already have the technology to converter methane to a liquid for transport, as well as storing hydrogen in ammonia hydrogen to ammonia conversion - Google Search for easy transport to eliminate burning fuels that produce carbon dioxide in the first place ..... but getting the will of govts to actually take any of these paths ..... yeah, never gunna happen

There is even a method of converting carbon dioxide to hard carbon that could be either used for sodium ion battery use, or buried Decarbonisation tech instantly converts CO2 to solid carbon | Australian Research Council check the date, Jan 2022 .... heard anything about this idea from anywhere recently?

T1 Terry

 

For what it's worth, I think sense 2 there is an example of an internet reference getting something exactly backward. I've never run across 'stasis' used to mean civil strife, and the idea would clash with the root meaning of the word.

Webster's 3rd (which I still have on paper for when the SHTF) says this:

3. a state of static balance or equilibrium among opposing tendencies or forces : QUIESCENCE, STAGNATION <at a point of ~ artistically and spiritually ... cannot develop any new creative activity — Harrison Smith>; specif : a state of stable and sometimes sterile equilibrium reached by a society : STAGNANCY <the essential danger of mass media ... lies in their ability to inflate existing consent to the point of a dull unanimity and so to achieve social and economic ~ — J. T. Klapper>
​

So, roughly the opposite of civil strife, as you'd expect, from the root meaning of the word.

I can see, on the other hand, how a period of 'stasis' could be followed by civil strife ....

I wonder if the strange definition above might have come from some AI that slurped in a lot of writing where stasis was followed by strife, and kind of overlooked the one-follows-the-other part.

 

Here's what you're saying

It's impossible for technology to advance further to a point where there's really cheap or even free energy

Predatory capitalists that are worth $billions and have invested $billions and are making $billions from that investment wouldn't do whatever it takes to protect their business.

 

i can believe that they would do whatever it takes, i just can't assign blame without proof

 

Some of the first submarines were powered by steam engines.
The only limitations are our own paradigms.

 

were they fully submersible?

 

Are the nuclear subs using steam turbines? A little different than an old-school locomotive, I appreciate...