3 ms·

Drill in to the links instead of dismissing them with a handwave, and you'll find what you're looking for. For example, here's a list of known climatic forcing

Drill in to the links instead of dismissing them with a handwave, and you'll find what you're looking for. For example, here's a list of known climatic forcing events: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Events_that_forced_the_climate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Events_that_forced_th... They help us verify models, and see what sort changes one can expect when disruptions to the system happen. To answer your specific question: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/pag... It's the rate of change that's the problem. What used to take thousands of years is now taking decades. If that doesn't seem like a big deal, think of the difference between stopping a car with normal braking action vs. crashing in to a brick wall. In both cases, the car changes its velocity by the same amount. It's the rate of change that causes the difference in trauma levels.

yters 7y ago
I thought there were events in the past like comets striking the earth that disrupted the global climate in days or perhaps even hours. Obviously, earth has more than recovered from a comet strike. It's hard to believe that what we are doing could be worse. Of course, I'm not saying I want to be here for a comet strike! But, we shouldn't pretend it's the earth's health we are concerned about, since the earth apparently can weather much, much worse than anything we can throw at it. It is our own human civilization we are worried about. And according to the climate models I see thrown around we have a century or so of slowly creeping sea levels to avoid. That seems pretty doable given all the things we humans have done in the past couple decades alone.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Baeocystin 7y ago
  >Obviously, earth has more than recovered from a comet strike. It's hard to believe that what we are doing could be worse. Earth did, after millions of years and a mass extinction. I'd rather not have that happen to the biosphere if it is something we can control. Some food for thought: Earth is already well on the backside of how much longer it will be able to support life. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_Earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_Earth for more details) Stopping damage now is the better option that thinking "Eh, things will recover in geologic time." Geologic time is running out. tl;dr- Earth is ~4.5 billion years old. Solar output increases by ~1% every 110 million years. There are ~500 million years left before long-term processes make Earth a hostile place for life.
  - yters 7y ago
    Right, so it's not earth we are concerned about, b/c earth is doomed anyways. It's human welfare we are concerned about, and that should be how the debate is framed. In what way does climate change possibly impact human welfare and what is the most practical way to address those impacts? Not a blanket 'climate change is bad so stop all CO2 production!'
    - Baeocystin 7y ago
      The IPCC report goes in to what the actionable items are in great depth. If you're interested in what we know, and what the best steps are to do, it should be your starting point. https://www.ipcc.ch/2019/08/08/land-is-a-critical-resource_srccl/ https://www.ipcc.ch/2019/08/08/land-is-a-critical-resource_s... will get you started.

yters 7y ago

I thought there were events in the past like comets striking the earth that disrupted the global climate in days or perhaps even hours. Obviously, earth has more than recovered from a comet strike. It's hard to believe that what we are doing could be worse. Of course, I'm not saying I want to be here for a comet strike! But, we shouldn't pretend it's the earth's health we are concerned about, since the earth apparently can weather much, much worse than anything we can throw at it. It is our own human civilization we are worried about. And according to the climate models I see thrown around we have a century or so of slowly creeping sea levels to avoid. That seems pretty doable given all the things we humans have done in the past couple decades alone.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Baeocystin 7y ago
>Obviously, earth has more than recovered from a comet strike. It's hard to believe that what we are doing could be worse. Earth did, after millions of years and a mass extinction. I'd rather not have that happen to the biosphere if it is something we can control. Some food for thought: Earth is already well on the backside of how much longer it will be able to support life. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_Earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_Earth for more details) Stopping damage now is the better option that thinking "Eh, things will recover in geologic time." Geologic time is running out. tl;dr- Earth is ~4.5 billion years old. Solar output increases by ~1% every 110 million years. There are ~500 million years left before long-term processes make Earth a hostile place for life.
- yters 7y ago
  Right, so it's not earth we are concerned about, b/c earth is doomed anyways. It's human welfare we are concerned about, and that should be how the debate is framed. In what way does climate change possibly impact human welfare and what is the most practical way to address those impacts? Not a blanket 'climate change is bad so stop all CO2 production!'
  - Baeocystin 7y ago
    The IPCC report goes in to what the actionable items are in great depth. If you're interested in what we know, and what the best steps are to do, it should be your starting point. https://www.ipcc.ch/2019/08/08/land-is-a-critical-resource_srccl/ https://www.ipcc.ch/2019/08/08/land-is-a-critical-resource_s... will get you started.