5 ms·

It's a pretty firm scientific consensus that mankind is having an outsized impact on the changing climate. It would be disingenuous to report otherwise. Sure,

by orf 9y ago

It's a pretty firm scientific consensus that mankind is having an outsized impact on the changing climate. It would be disingenuous to report otherwise. Sure, we could be exacerbating natural cycles, but according to the large volumes of data we do have it's pretty clear that humans are a major contributing factor.

uncoder0 9y ago
From what I've read it's much closer to 100% than it is to 50% in terms of what percentage of the current warming since 1950 can be attributed to humans. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/sep/15/97-vs-3-how-much-global-warming-are-humans-causing https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...
- jquery 9y ago
  Serious question for those who think we know all the science (I believe in warming). Are there any models of climate change which have been predictive for the past 100 years and which existed at least 5 or more years ago?
  - flukus 9y ago
    Most of them to varying degrees. They don't just start a model and hope it can predict the future, they test them by starting at a passed date and seeing if the can predict the present.
throwahey 9y ago
Consensus is not conclusive. It takes a special kind of hubris for someone to think they understand climate change with the minute dataset we have. We don't have enough data to guess next month's weather let alone the possible effects in 10+ years.
- oewfoewf 9y ago
  Consensus enough that geoengineering countermeasure "proposals" (they've already started these programs decades ago) explicitly counter the mechanisms that only humans could have started.
- orf 9y ago
  > It takes a special kind of hubris for someone to think they understand climate change with the minute dataset we have. And an even greater hubris to ignore the pretty vast dataset we do have and go diametrically against the conclusions it suggests. It's also pretty funny how that greater hubris is exhibited mainly in a particular country, and a specific party in that country which has a lot of ties/donations from oil companies. Especially when other branches of the government are preparing for the results of man made climate change. Makes you think, doesn't it.
  - dizzystar 9y ago
    In a certain state in said country, the majority of people are very much not a part of said party, recycle by law, and claim to live with minimal carbon footprint. They also prefer to buy gas-guzzling SUVs, use millions of gallons of water to maintain lawns in the desert, redirect water to their large population centers to do so, and line up to buy the new iThing each year (tossing out the perfectly good old one in the trash).
    - orf 9y ago
      > They also prefer to buy gas-guzzling SUVs, use millions of gallons of water to maintain lawns in the desert, redirect water to their large population centers to do so, and line up to buy the new iThing each year (tossing out the perfectly good old one in the trash). All whilst maintaining the third lowest CO2 emissions per capita. Incredible!
    - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
      I’m seriously trying to figure out what state you are talking about. Definitely not California (cities aren’t very near the desert, even Los Angeles is in a semi humid basin), Arizona doesn’t have lawns mostly, Utah SLC wouldn’t really qualify as desert either. So then I thought you might mean Saudi Arabia?
obastani 9y ago
I'm not supporting the GP's viewpoint, but I think their point is that we don't have enough information to attribute warming specifically in the Arctic to human causes. I don't know very much about the subject, but given that the Arctic is a fairly large region, I'd be inclined to guess that this viewpoint is still wrong.
- gerdesj 9y ago
  "but I think their point is that we don't have enough information to attribute warming specifically in the Arctic to human causes" How many papers have you read? There are quite a few that refute your standpoint. When I say quite a few I am really taking the piss: every single scientist, and by that term I mean people who spend their lives studying things, who are responsibly qualified and who use the scientific method which involves observation, analysis and reasonable conclusion. I'll grant you that there are many sources of bollocks that might distract you but if you stick to decent, authoritative sources you will discover that not only are things as bad as you think they are, they are actually worse. Personally, I'm a bit of an optimist and I think we can pull back from the brink (whatever that is) but the world is gong to be a bit odd in say 100 years time for humans.
apple4ever 9y ago
> It's a pretty firm scientific consensus Science isn't consensus. And besides, we have nothing firm at all.
- gerdesj 9y ago
  Would you care to have a chat?
  - seandougall 9y ago
    I’ll hold your beer.

by orf 9y ago

uncoder0 9y ago

From what I've read it's much closer to 100% than it is to 50% in terms of what percentage of the current warming since 1950 can be attributed to humans. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/sep/15/97-vs-3-how-much-global-warming-are-humans-causing https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...

jquery 9y ago
Serious question for those who think we know all the science (I believe in warming). Are there any models of climate change which have been predictive for the past 100 years and which existed at least 5 or more years ago?
- flukus 9y ago
  Most of them to varying degrees. They don't just start a model and hope it can predict the future, they test them by starting at a passed date and seeing if the can predict the present.

throwahey 9y ago

Consensus is not conclusive. It takes a special kind of hubris for someone to think they understand climate change with the minute dataset we have. We don't have enough data to guess next month's weather let alone the possible effects in 10+ years.

oewfoewf 9y ago
Consensus enough that geoengineering countermeasure "proposals" (they've already started these programs decades ago) explicitly counter the mechanisms that only humans could have started.
orf 9y ago
> It takes a special kind of hubris for someone to think they understand climate change with the minute dataset we have. And an even greater hubris to ignore the pretty vast dataset we do have and go diametrically against the conclusions it suggests. It's also pretty funny how that greater hubris is exhibited mainly in a particular country, and a specific party in that country which has a lot of ties/donations from oil companies. Especially when other branches of the government are preparing for the results of man made climate change. Makes you think, doesn't it.
- dizzystar 9y ago
  In a certain state in said country, the majority of people are very much not a part of said party, recycle by law, and claim to live with minimal carbon footprint. They also prefer to buy gas-guzzling SUVs, use millions of gallons of water to maintain lawns in the desert, redirect water to their large population centers to do so, and line up to buy the new iThing each year (tossing out the perfectly good old one in the trash).
  - orf 9y ago
    > They also prefer to buy gas-guzzling SUVs, use millions of gallons of water to maintain lawns in the desert, redirect water to their large population centers to do so, and line up to buy the new iThing each year (tossing out the perfectly good old one in the trash). All whilst maintaining the third lowest CO2 emissions per capita. Incredible!
  - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
    I’m seriously trying to figure out what state you are talking about. Definitely not California (cities aren’t very near the desert, even Los Angeles is in a semi humid basin), Arizona doesn’t have lawns mostly, Utah SLC wouldn’t really qualify as desert either. So then I thought you might mean Saudi Arabia?

obastani 9y ago

I'm not supporting the GP's viewpoint, but I think their point is that we don't have enough information to attribute warming specifically in the Arctic to human causes. I don't know very much about the subject, but given that the Arctic is a fairly large region, I'd be inclined to guess that this viewpoint is still wrong.

gerdesj 9y ago
"but I think their point is that we don't have enough information to attribute warming specifically in the Arctic to human causes" How many papers have you read? There are quite a few that refute your standpoint. When I say quite a few I am really taking the piss: every single scientist, and by that term I mean people who spend their lives studying things, who are responsibly qualified and who use the scientific method which involves observation, analysis and reasonable conclusion. I'll grant you that there are many sources of bollocks that might distract you but if you stick to decent, authoritative sources you will discover that not only are things as bad as you think they are, they are actually worse. Personally, I'm a bit of an optimist and I think we can pull back from the brink (whatever that is) but the world is gong to be a bit odd in say 100 years time for humans.

apple4ever 9y ago

> It's a pretty firm scientific consensus Science isn't consensus. And besides, we have nothing firm at all.

gerdesj 9y ago
Would you care to have a chat?
- seandougall 9y ago
  I’ll hold your beer.