4 ms·

And this is 100% correct. And, it has happened before. The world has had warming and cooling cycles for as long as there has been earth. The idea that all of th

And this is 100% correct. And, it has happened before. The world has had warming and cooling cycles for as long as there has been earth. The idea that all of this is a “new” thing isn’t supported by evidence.

jellicle 8y ago
But this isn't a warming or cooling cycle caused by any external event, but rather one caused by humans. It's not going to "switch back" to cooling, and this is indeed very new, entirely unprecedented in Earth's existence, and supported by mountains of evidence. The massive amount of pollution we've dumped into the atmosphere is causing irrevocable, widespread, vast changes to the Earth. All of the above is stuff any kindergartener knows.
- notyourwork 8y ago
  You lose people when you don't include any evidence and say "supported by mountains of evidence". (I agree with your point but please supplement your claim with evidence.)
  - hobs 8y ago
    Only if we allow sealioning to take over - global climate change is in the realm of accepted science, its 100% on people claiming the opposite to prove their claims at this point.
    - striking 8y ago
      You're not necessarily arguing directly against the other person, you're also playing the room. Every time you talk to someone who denies climate change is another chance to convince them and everyone who is reading of what you believe. So in my opinion it's best to cite your own evidence regardless of how accepted your beliefs are by an establishment, rather than just saying the other side has the burden of proof. Whether or not this comes from a pre-curated set of talking points is up to you.
      - hobs 8y ago
        Feel free to - but asking people to show their evidence for generally accepted stuff is a great way for trolls to waste your time with useless questions - literally why the term sealioning was invented. If you want to bring up new evidence and arguments that are not settled then go for it, but asking everyone to post their pedigree to talk about evolution or climate change is just catering to an american audience who is purposefully putting their fingers in their ears - we have no reason to cater to willfully ignorant people.
        notyourwork 8y ago
        Generally accepted and the US government continually passes legislation that doesn't agree. I'm not sure I agree with "generally accepted".
olliej 8y ago
Seriously, it isn't we have ice cores, and direct records for the last 200 years that show that the periodic changes in planet temperature are nothing like what has been happening for the last hundred years. That said, I'm going to assume that based on your comment, you aren't actually interested in science or anything beyond talking points provided by others. If you were actually interested in the science of this you would be able to provide studies that haven't been subsequently refuted, or been demonstrated to not actually compensate for the measured effect of global warming. Solar cycles have been demonstrated to not explain the current changes in global temperature. The impact is not anywhere near fast enough to match current the last hundred years of change. Random variance doesn't explain it - models for global warming predict increases in extremes of basically all events. Random variance is random so does not explain any changes with a measurable bias. Conspiracy theories don't explain anything. 1) they're conspiracy theories, not science; 2) they depend on everyone lying about the temperature over time, except everyone agrees on what the temperatures are. No hypothesis put forward, matches the core predictive ability of global warming theory: global temperature is increasing, as a result of increased CO2 and other pollutants introduced into the atmosphere by human, and human driven industries. This theory predicts increased global average temperature as long as greenhouse emissions continue, it explains ocean acidification, and it explains increased frequency "extreme" weather. If you have some alternative hypothesis that matches prior atmospheric behavior over the last 200 years, and can also explain the things that global warming does, I'm all ears. But I suspect you're just either a troll, or a talking point driven internet commenter.
- y-c-o-m-b 8y ago
  Reading this is is like reading a batman comic, I picture comic bubbles with "POW!" and "BOOM!" after each sentence. I like how you explain things, very easy to understand. Thanks for the insightful comments.
SubiculumCode 8y ago
Your argument is essentially: It is ok that my house is burning down today because my house has a heater that gets lit every winter. You see, there is a difference in magnitude and velocity of the warming over the last century that differentiates the current warming to past warming cycles.
wlll 8y ago
While there are people putting out papers that suggest that what we are seeing is the result solar cycles, and perhaps the overlaying of multiple solar maxiuma, eg: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825216300277 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001282521... * There are many more that refute this however: - https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14845 https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14845 - https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018EF000889 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018... and it seems to me that current climate science is largely in the "it's human produced C02" camp. You can search yourself for research at https://scholar.google.com https://scholar.google.com. * though note that ISTR this paper only revises anthropogenic climate change down to 0.6°C which is still pretty high, and sorry, I can't find a free PDF of this paper anywhere.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  I'm not sure refuting is the correct term. I think the most fundamental problem for climate science is that everything is based on models, and so nothing is falsifiable. This means that nothing is refutable. Everything is based on models which are retrofitted the past data. This means they, generally, do an effective job of mapping to old data (as that is what they're created on), and then extrapolate from those old data into the future. But the big problem is that those future results are generally plagued by very poor rates of predictability. But since there's no falsifiability, it doesn't matter. There are major examples in both directions here. In the overstating direction, between 2001 and 2010 the warming slowed to 0.11C per decade. [1] For the 17 years before then was 0.17C. Because the models just map past data to future, nobody predicted this. There is of course a matter of long term vs short term. But at the same time, I think it's important to ensure we don't use this as never-fail defensive tool. Everybody missing a decadal long period of dramatic change is something that should not be ignored and I think we've been disconcertingly quick to marginalize. In the other direction many climate models underestimated the rate of antarctic sea ice melting. This is, paradoxically, then used as a defense of the models. 'See? We were just being conservative. The sea levels are rising even faster than we said!' But this is again a very disconcerting form of handwaving, that also seems to indicate severe bias. Something happening faster than a model predicts is no better than it happening slower than the model predicts. What it means is the same in both cases - the model is broken. [1] - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/did-global-warming-slow-down-in-the-2000s-or-not/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/did-global-warmin...

jellicle 8y ago

But this isn't a warming or cooling cycle caused by any external event, but rather one caused by humans. It's not going to "switch back" to cooling, and this is indeed very new, entirely unprecedented in Earth's existence, and supported by mountains of evidence. The massive amount of pollution we've dumped into the atmosphere is causing irrevocable, widespread, vast changes to the Earth. All of the above is stuff any kindergartener knows.

notyourwork 8y ago
You lose people when you don't include any evidence and say "supported by mountains of evidence". (I agree with your point but please supplement your claim with evidence.)
- hobs 8y ago
  Only if we allow sealioning to take over - global climate change is in the realm of accepted science, its 100% on people claiming the opposite to prove their claims at this point.
  - striking 8y ago
    You're not necessarily arguing directly against the other person, you're also playing the room. Every time you talk to someone who denies climate change is another chance to convince them and everyone who is reading of what you believe. So in my opinion it's best to cite your own evidence regardless of how accepted your beliefs are by an establishment, rather than just saying the other side has the burden of proof. Whether or not this comes from a pre-curated set of talking points is up to you.
    - hobs 8y ago
      Feel free to - but asking people to show their evidence for generally accepted stuff is a great way for trolls to waste your time with useless questions - literally why the term sealioning was invented. If you want to bring up new evidence and arguments that are not settled then go for it, but asking everyone to post their pedigree to talk about evolution or climate change is just catering to an american audience who is purposefully putting their fingers in their ears - we have no reason to cater to willfully ignorant people.
      - notyourwork 8y ago
        Generally accepted and the US government continually passes legislation that doesn't agree. I'm not sure I agree with "generally accepted".

olliej 8y ago

Seriously, it isn't we have ice cores, and direct records for the last 200 years that show that the periodic changes in planet temperature are nothing like what has been happening for the last hundred years. That said, I'm going to assume that based on your comment, you aren't actually interested in science or anything beyond talking points provided by others. If you were actually interested in the science of this you would be able to provide studies that haven't been subsequently refuted, or been demonstrated to not actually compensate for the measured effect of global warming. Solar cycles have been demonstrated to not explain the current changes in global temperature. The impact is not anywhere near fast enough to match current the last hundred years of change. Random variance doesn't explain it - models for global warming predict increases in extremes of basically all events. Random variance is random so does not explain any changes with a measurable bias. Conspiracy theories don't explain anything. 1) they're conspiracy theories, not science; 2) they depend on everyone lying about the temperature over time, except everyone agrees on what the temperatures are. No hypothesis put forward, matches the core predictive ability of global warming theory: global temperature is increasing, as a result of increased CO2 and other pollutants introduced into the atmosphere by human, and human driven industries. This theory predicts increased global average temperature as long as greenhouse emissions continue, it explains ocean acidification, and it explains increased frequency "extreme" weather. If you have some alternative hypothesis that matches prior atmospheric behavior over the last 200 years, and can also explain the things that global warming does, I'm all ears. But I suspect you're just either a troll, or a talking point driven internet commenter.

y-c-o-m-b 8y ago
Reading this is is like reading a batman comic, I picture comic bubbles with "POW!" and "BOOM!" after each sentence. I like how you explain things, very easy to understand. Thanks for the insightful comments.

SubiculumCode 8y ago

Your argument is essentially: It is ok that my house is burning down today because my house has a heater that gets lit every winter. You see, there is a difference in magnitude and velocity of the warming over the last century that differentiates the current warming to past warming cycles.

wlll 8y ago

While there are people putting out papers that suggest that what we are seeing is the result solar cycles, and perhaps the overlaying of multiple solar maxiuma, eg: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825216300277 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001282521... * There are many more that refute this however: - https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14845 https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14845 - https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018EF000889 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018... and it seems to me that current climate science is largely in the "it's human produced C02" camp. You can search yourself for research at https://scholar.google.com https://scholar.google.com. * though note that ISTR this paper only revises anthropogenic climate change down to 0.6°C which is still pretty high, and sorry, I can't find a free PDF of this paper anywhere.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago
I'm not sure refuting is the correct term. I think the most fundamental problem for climate science is that everything is based on models, and so nothing is falsifiable. This means that nothing is refutable. Everything is based on models which are retrofitted the past data. This means they, generally, do an effective job of mapping to old data (as that is what they're created on), and then extrapolate from those old data into the future. But the big problem is that those future results are generally plagued by very poor rates of predictability. But since there's no falsifiability, it doesn't matter. There are major examples in both directions here. In the overstating direction, between 2001 and 2010 the warming slowed to 0.11C per decade. [1] For the 17 years before then was 0.17C. Because the models just map past data to future, nobody predicted this. There is of course a matter of long term vs short term. But at the same time, I think it's important to ensure we don't use this as never-fail defensive tool. Everybody missing a decadal long period of dramatic change is something that should not be ignored and I think we've been disconcertingly quick to marginalize. In the other direction many climate models underestimated the rate of antarctic sea ice melting. This is, paradoxically, then used as a defense of the models. 'See? We were just being conservative. The sea levels are rising even faster than we said!' But this is again a very disconcerting form of handwaving, that also seems to indicate severe bias. Something happening faster than a model predicts is no better than it happening slower than the model predicts. What it means is the same in both cases - the model is broken. [1] - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/did-global-warming-slow-down-in-the-2000s-or-not/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/did-global-warmin...