3 ms·

Do you believe in global warming/climate change?

merpnderp 10y ago
How about the Earth is warming, we don't know by how much, but likely not nearly as much as we previously thought, and we are missing crap tons of data and understanding about how different systems work. https://home.cern/about/updates/2016/05/cloud-shows-pre-industrial-skies-cloudier-we-thought https://home.cern/about/updates/2016/05/cloud-shows-pre-indu...
- dpark 10y ago
  > How about the Earth is warming, we don't know by how much, but likely not nearly as much as we previously thought This is a bold claim completely unsupported by your link.
  - merpnderp 10y ago
    "If ancient cloud cover was closer to today’s levels, the increase in the cloud-cooling effect due to human pollution could also be smaller—which means that Earth was not warming up so much in response to increased greenhouse gases alone. In other words, Earth is less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought, and it may warm up less in response to future carbon emissions, says Urs Baltensperger of the Paul Scherrer Institute, who was an author on all three papers." http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/earth-s-climate-may-not-warm-quickly-expected-suggest-new-cloud-studies http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/earth-s-climate-may-n...
    - dpark 10y ago
      Still not supporting your claim. > we don't know by how much This is a measurable (and measured) thing. We know exactly how much the Earth has already warmed. We do not know exactly how much it will warm in the future, but we know how much it has warmed. And the articles are also not nearly as pessimistic about how good our estimates are. You're acting as if we're flying blind just because our models are imperfect. > but likely not nearly as much as we previously thought FTA: "He says that the current best estimates of future temperature rises are still feasible, but "the highest values become improbable."" So no. The current best estimates are still the best estimates. This does not jive at all with your assertion that it's "likely not nearly as much".
      - merpnderp 10y ago
        I don't think that word "exactly" means what you think it means. And you're misrepresentating what I said. I didn't say our estimates were getting worse. I made it clear they would simply would be lower than before. And both articles I linked made it clear that the new estimates would be improved. You're splitting hairs about nothing when you aren't representing what I said. Have a good day.
        dpark 10y ago
        No, you're downplaying the magnitude of global warming an implying that the future impact has been drastically overstated. It's not splitting hairs. You're presenting a small revision to our understanding of global warming as if it undermines our predictions, and your own sources do not support what you're saying. This is dishonest. I hope you have a great day, too.

How about the Earth is warming, we don't know by how much, but likely not nearly as much as we previously thought, and we are missing crap tons of data and understanding about how different systems work. https://home.cern/about/updates/2016/05/cloud-shows-pre-industrial-skies-cloudier-we-thought https://home.cern/about/updates/2016/05/cloud-shows-pre-indu...

dpark 10y ago
> How about the Earth is warming, we don't know by how much, but likely not nearly as much as we previously thought This is a bold claim completely unsupported by your link.
- merpnderp 10y ago
  "If ancient cloud cover was closer to today’s levels, the increase in the cloud-cooling effect due to human pollution could also be smaller—which means that Earth was not warming up so much in response to increased greenhouse gases alone. In other words, Earth is less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought, and it may warm up less in response to future carbon emissions, says Urs Baltensperger of the Paul Scherrer Institute, who was an author on all three papers." http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/earth-s-climate-may-not-warm-quickly-expected-suggest-new-cloud-studies http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/earth-s-climate-may-n...
  - dpark 10y ago
    Still not supporting your claim. > we don't know by how much This is a measurable (and measured) thing. We know exactly how much the Earth has already warmed. We do not know exactly how much it will warm in the future, but we know how much it has warmed. And the articles are also not nearly as pessimistic about how good our estimates are. You're acting as if we're flying blind just because our models are imperfect. > but likely not nearly as much as we previously thought FTA: "He says that the current best estimates of future temperature rises are still feasible, but "the highest values become improbable."" So no. The current best estimates are still the best estimates. This does not jive at all with your assertion that it's "likely not nearly as much".
    - merpnderp 10y ago
      I don't think that word "exactly" means what you think it means. And you're misrepresentating what I said. I didn't say our estimates were getting worse. I made it clear they would simply would be lower than before. And both articles I linked made it clear that the new estimates would be improved. You're splitting hairs about nothing when you aren't representing what I said. Have a good day.
      - dpark 10y ago
        No, you're downplaying the magnitude of global warming an implying that the future impact has been drastically overstated. It's not splitting hairs. You're presenting a small revision to our understanding of global warming as if it undermines our predictions, and your own sources do not support what you're saying. This is dishonest. I hope you have a great day, too.