>>18488Go to 11:20, when he starts deboooonking. He says there was no rapid sea level rise after the younger dryas. Direct quote: "At the end of the last ice age, sea levels were
slowly rising. About 14.000 years ago the sea level were rising by about that much *draws a tiny line on the board* about 20mm per year. and by about 11.000BC the rate of sea level rise dramatic ally decreased, *smug liberal chortle*, to about 4mm. Needless to say that this would be a sea level rise that would be infitesimal on the human perception scale. … at the peak of the melt, 11.450BC there was a rise of about 40mm per year, still not enough for people to notice."
My problem with liberals like him and you is that you take a
debated issue, then settle it in a way that suits you. What he is saying is not the "accepted view" at all, and you should actually look at some scientific journals on the topic, not get all your knowledge from a youtube video.
>A more clearly-defined accelerated phase of sea level rise occurred between 14,600 to 13,500 years before present (termed "meltwater pulse 1A" or "MWP-1A" by Fairbanks in 1989), when sea level increased by some 16 to 24 m (see Figure 1). Although the meltwater was previously believed to have come chiefly from Antarctica, a recent reconstruction by Tarasov and Peltier of ice sheet retreat using a glacial model calibrated by a variety of data points instead to a largely North American source. Furthermore, diatom fossils in sediments from fjords in East Antarctica show that ice melting there began perhaps 3000 years later, thus ruling out Antarctica as a likely source.https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/2007_gornitz_09/MiniMan doesn't even mention meltwater pulse 1A and he misrepresents the sea level rise.
>A problem with this hypothesis is the timing of meltwater pulses that are supposed to have triggered the THC shutdown: it was found that a second meltwater pulse, albeit slightly smaller than the first one, occurred at the end of the YD (Fairbanks, 1989): why didn't it also trigger a similar chain of consequences in the climate system?
>An alternate explanation (Clement et al., 2001) invokes the abrupt cessation in the El Nino -Southern Oscillation in response to changes in the orbital parameters of the Earth, although how such a change would impact regions away from the Tropics remains to be explained.
>The respective merits of both hypotheses have been laid out by Broecker (2003). The issue is far from being settled, and actively researched at Lamont and elsewhere.https://ocp.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/arch/examples.shtmlMiniMan probably has a BA in Archeology from some flyover state university. It is obvious he doesn't actually himself understand what he is talking about when it comes to geology, math and s on. In one of the debunking video he gets confused about the negative BC years and which date comes earlier/later.
He made the video.for clicks, to capitalise on Hancock's Netflix show, except he targets the I Fucking Love Science liberals like you, who aren't actually gonna double-check what it says, cause it
feels right. Just how you will dismiss NASA and Columbia U because it doesn't feel right.
So far the "Hancock schizo" has linked and used over a dozen scientific papers/articles, while the anti-Hancock libs have posted a single YouTube video over a dozen times. That is the privilege one has when they espouse the dominant ideology. That is why libs never feel a need to argue against communism, dominant ideology settled that matter.
It is what the lib is trying to do here. Assert that the liberal, dominant view/ideology is correct and any debate is not only unnecessary, but a sign of a "schizo". There's talk about toxic culture on this board, well this is a prime example.