5 ms·

I have found that exactly this story is the strongest argument against the AGW narrative: Humanity is merely returning the state of the atmosphere back to a ear

I have found that exactly this story is the strongest argument against the AGW narrative: Humanity is merely returning the state of the atmosphere back to a earlier state.

arethuza 7y ago
Doesn't that mean that you are actually accepting "AGW" if you are saying it is OK because the planet was in a similar state before?
soVeryTired 7y ago
That's probably true. But it's doing so on a timescale of centuries, whereas the cooling happened over hundreds of millennia. Maybe an apt metaphor is with pressure. Go from ten atmospheres of pressure to one in an hour and your ears will pop. Do it in less than a second and your blood vessels will pop.
ajuc 7y ago
To a time when there was no humans and no animals and plants we depend on. Sure. Planet will be fine, we won't.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  We'll be fine as a species. There will be a lot more sob stories about this or that village in some less developed nation starving because they can no longer farm their land, there will be wars over resources, etc. Humanity will be just fine.
  - baq 7y ago
    a million villages will try to move away from the equatorial zone and the tropics at the same time. this ends in war, famine and every other humanitarian crisis you can think of.
    - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
      I didn't say it was going to be fun. Humanity will be fine though.
      - ajuc 7y ago
        For vast majority of people climate change as currently predicted (not even the pessimistic scenario) will mean suffering, lowering of living standards and risk of premature death jumping a few orders of magnitude. And no - it won't just be people in 3rd world countries. If that's fine for you then sure. We will be fine. EU just had a so called "immigration crisis" because a few million refuges came and people disagreed how to deal with them, to the point of populist governments being elected and some countries considering leaving the EU. Now imagine not 3 millions but 500 millions of refuges. How will the world deal with that? All of this while food is becoming much more expansive, and there is a need for many infrastructural projects to save coastal cities. The likely answer is - political turmoil, mass crimes against humanity, wars, failing states. The biggest problem with global warming is that people reject solutions because of well-estimated costs, but they don't even try to estimate the cost of not doing anything, and when it's estimated for them they just ignore it like it's not there.
        dsfyu404ed 7y ago
        JFC. I'm not endorsing it or saying we should do nothing and the tone and content of your comments seems to imply you think I am. Yes it will suck but humans will keep on existing, just probably not 7.5 billion of them. Furthermore, it will happen over generations so from the perspective of the people who have to live it it will be a steep decline where things get worse and worse, it won't be a cataclysmic event like a war (expect for those unlucky enough to live in times and places that will see war as a result of this). Yes we should do things to make it suck less but to imply that the end result will be a planet with no humans on it is hyperbolic and farcical.
  - polotics 7y ago
    Well it's a "sob story" until it's your airco shutting down. Does "less developed nation" mean you won't starve? Does your statement make it more or less likely for someone born less lucky than you to consider it legitimate to get your survival and make it his (mine) ?
mikeash 7y ago
If I bash your head in, I’m merely returning you back to an earlier state.
- taneq 7y ago
  Well no, their state was never "head bashed in".
  - mikeash 7y ago
    Eventually they’ll decompose and return to their original state of being dirt.
wongarsu 7y ago
Sure, for "the planet" it's not a big problem. A lot of species would die, but live would recover. It's happened plenty of times before. The problem is that we also like living on this planet, and climate change might make a good portion uninhabitable in my own or my children's lifetime. Also people really like living on the coast, and either relocating them or combating rising sea levels alone will cost a fortune. Not combating climate change is the most expensive decision we can make.

I have found that exactly this story is the strongest argument against the AGW narrative: Humanity is merely returning the state of the atmosphere back to a earlier state.

arethuza 7y ago

Doesn't that mean that you are actually accepting "AGW" if you are saying it is OK because the planet was in a similar state before?

soVeryTired 7y ago

That's probably true. But it's doing so on a timescale of centuries, whereas the cooling happened over hundreds of millennia. Maybe an apt metaphor is with pressure. Go from ten atmospheres of pressure to one in an hour and your ears will pop. Do it in less than a second and your blood vessels will pop.

ajuc 7y ago

To a time when there was no humans and no animals and plants we depend on. Sure. Planet will be fine, we won't.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
We'll be fine as a species. There will be a lot more sob stories about this or that village in some less developed nation starving because they can no longer farm their land, there will be wars over resources, etc. Humanity will be just fine.
- baq 7y ago
  a million villages will try to move away from the equatorial zone and the tropics at the same time. this ends in war, famine and every other humanitarian crisis you can think of.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    I didn't say it was going to be fun. Humanity will be fine though.
    - ajuc 7y ago
      For vast majority of people climate change as currently predicted (not even the pessimistic scenario) will mean suffering, lowering of living standards and risk of premature death jumping a few orders of magnitude. And no - it won't just be people in 3rd world countries. If that's fine for you then sure. We will be fine. EU just had a so called "immigration crisis" because a few million refuges came and people disagreed how to deal with them, to the point of populist governments being elected and some countries considering leaving the EU. Now imagine not 3 millions but 500 millions of refuges. How will the world deal with that? All of this while food is becoming much more expansive, and there is a need for many infrastructural projects to save coastal cities. The likely answer is - political turmoil, mass crimes against humanity, wars, failing states. The biggest problem with global warming is that people reject solutions because of well-estimated costs, but they don't even try to estimate the cost of not doing anything, and when it's estimated for them they just ignore it like it's not there.
      - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
        JFC. I'm not endorsing it or saying we should do nothing and the tone and content of your comments seems to imply you think I am. Yes it will suck but humans will keep on existing, just probably not 7.5 billion of them. Furthermore, it will happen over generations so from the perspective of the people who have to live it it will be a steep decline where things get worse and worse, it won't be a cataclysmic event like a war (expect for those unlucky enough to live in times and places that will see war as a result of this). Yes we should do things to make it suck less but to imply that the end result will be a planet with no humans on it is hyperbolic and farcical.
- polotics 7y ago
  Well it's a "sob story" until it's your airco shutting down. Does "less developed nation" mean you won't starve? Does your statement make it more or less likely for someone born less lucky than you to consider it legitimate to get your survival and make it his (mine) ?

mikeash 7y ago

If I bash your head in, I’m merely returning you back to an earlier state.

taneq 7y ago
Well no, their state was never "head bashed in".
- mikeash 7y ago
  Eventually they’ll decompose and return to their original state of being dirt.

wongarsu 7y ago

Sure, for "the planet" it's not a big problem. A lot of species would die, but live would recover. It's happened plenty of times before. The problem is that we also like living on this planet, and climate change might make a good portion uninhabitable in my own or my children's lifetime. Also people really like living on the coast, and either relocating them or combating rising sea levels alone will cost a fortune. Not combating climate change is the most expensive decision we can make.