3 ms·

Indeed. But there were 0 humans during most of Earth's history, so it's not really a relevant point. The entire Mississippi valley used to be under a shallow

Indeed. But there were 0 humans during most of Earth's history, so it's not really a relevant point. The entire Mississippi valley used to be under a shallow sea, but this is also an irrelevant fact for the Quaternary Period. The next one being due in 90kyr thing is pretty false, you can't just pick your favorite Milankovitch cycle and say that this is the important one for climate, as the shorter period cycles are important too, along with other things like the thermohaline circulation. But hey, I'm guessing you actually don't know what the words I'm using even mean, and are just parroting things you heard from other unknowledgeable sources.

euroclydon 9y ago
John McPhee stated, rather breezily, in The Annals of the Former World, that the next ice age is due in 90K years. He did mention there were three or so cyclical events that have to line up. I think, with all your animosity, you might be making a lot of assumptions that I have some agenda with my comment. Is your brother-in-law a climate change denier? And about the rest of your comment: Is that how you normally talk to people? That must go well... One more thing: I can’t imagine a top five goals list for humanity that doesn’t include existing as a civilization through a few more ice ages. I mean, sure, the economic lifetime of Copenhagen’s buildings might not extend that long, but I think it’s relevant.
- labster 9y ago
  It's more that in offline life, I have to deal with lots of people who have crazy theories about climate, and I tend to see HN as a kind of safe space where I shouldn't have to deal with uninformed people offering barely-on-topic opinions. Your justification... kinda qualifies. If you don't understand something here, follow community norms and ask a question. The next ice age isn't really "due" anytime. Yes, there are orbital parameters which create a long-term varying climate. But you could also argue that it's due right now, as the Yellowstone Caldera is seems to be behind on its eruption cycle. But none of that has to do with Greenland melting, which is mainly a geological/hydrological process at this point. It's climate-adjacent, for sure, but the questions are mainly how much will melt, how fast, and how much will the land rebound once shedding weight. And further, this all has even less to do with flooding in coastal areas, as most of the sea level rise will come from simple thermal expansion. (Honestly I'm more worried about Greenland as a albedo change positive feedback effect than the meltwater.) And that's a typical technique of climate deniers -- reframe the debate in terms of something simpler, and then make a sweeping generalization based on that. You set off my filter for that -- sorry that it was a false positive.
civility 9y ago
> But hey, I'm guessing you actually don't know what the words I'm using even mean I can't believe this comment wasn't reprimanded. This is one of the least civil things I've seen someone here say in the last month. This type of response does not belong here. I guess anything goes as long you're on the correct side of an argument. Fucking hypocrites.
- labster 9y ago
  If you think I'm wrong, there's a [flag] button for a reason. I do agree it was an overreaction to what I perceived as whataboutism, though, and I'm sorry for that.

euroclydon 9y ago

John McPhee stated, rather breezily, in The Annals of the Former World, that the next ice age is due in 90K years. He did mention there were three or so cyclical events that have to line up. I think, with all your animosity, you might be making a lot of assumptions that I have some agenda with my comment. Is your brother-in-law a climate change denier? And about the rest of your comment: Is that how you normally talk to people? That must go well... One more thing: I can’t imagine a top five goals list for humanity that doesn’t include existing as a civilization through a few more ice ages. I mean, sure, the economic lifetime of Copenhagen’s buildings might not extend that long, but I think it’s relevant.

labster 9y ago
It's more that in offline life, I have to deal with lots of people who have crazy theories about climate, and I tend to see HN as a kind of safe space where I shouldn't have to deal with uninformed people offering barely-on-topic opinions. Your justification... kinda qualifies. If you don't understand something here, follow community norms and ask a question. The next ice age isn't really "due" anytime. Yes, there are orbital parameters which create a long-term varying climate. But you could also argue that it's due right now, as the Yellowstone Caldera is seems to be behind on its eruption cycle. But none of that has to do with Greenland melting, which is mainly a geological/hydrological process at this point. It's climate-adjacent, for sure, but the questions are mainly how much will melt, how fast, and how much will the land rebound once shedding weight. And further, this all has even less to do with flooding in coastal areas, as most of the sea level rise will come from simple thermal expansion. (Honestly I'm more worried about Greenland as a albedo change positive feedback effect than the meltwater.) And that's a typical technique of climate deniers -- reframe the debate in terms of something simpler, and then make a sweeping generalization based on that. You set off my filter for that -- sorry that it was a false positive.

civility 9y ago

> But hey, I'm guessing you actually don't know what the words I'm using even mean I can't believe this comment wasn't reprimanded. This is one of the least civil things I've seen someone here say in the last month. This type of response does not belong here. I guess anything goes as long you're on the correct side of an argument. Fucking hypocrites.

labster 9y ago
If you think I'm wrong, there's a [flag] button for a reason. I do agree it was an overreaction to what I perceived as whataboutism, though, and I'm sorry for that.