7 ms·

I’ve always found climate scepticism strange, because of its emphasis on refusing to accept the connection between rising temperatures and CO2. This really seem

I’ve always found climate scepticism strange, because of its emphasis on refusing to accept the connection between rising temperatures and CO2. This really seems to be the least defensible position which could be chosen. The “scepticism” is disputing really basic science which has been well understood for a long time, and it’s in that sense that calling it denial is accurate. It would be much more defensible to accept a lower level of climate sensitivity, but dispute the mechanisms which cause higher sensitivity, or possible future positive feedback effects.

decoyworker 7y ago
My father has been going on about cloud coverage lately. The conspiracy being that they have a cooling effect and invalidate some liberal climate change agenda.
- tonmoy 7y ago
  Cloud coverage impact on global temperature is one of the last unknowns hard for us to predict. Hence it is the last defense any serious scientist for denial
- scottlocklin 7y ago
  Cloud coverage is in fact left out of most climatological models (too hard to predict, and they would dominate all other factors). https://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/role.html#COMP_MODS https://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/role.html#COMP_MODS
  - decoyworker 7y ago
    Yeah, being left out of the models plays into the conspiracy factor. My father mentioned that climate scientists are shills knowingly leaving out this data.
- _ph_ 7y ago
  We have a clearly observed and measured rapid global warming in the last decades. So whatever mechanism might counteract global warming, it obviously allowed the rapid warming to happen and unless anyone can present a plausible model why the counteraction should get stronger than any further warming, it won't prevent further warming.
agent008t 7y ago
Sorry to hijack, but I have been curious about this for a while and have not been able to find any references from anyone working on the climate models or who has studied the forecasting methodology in detail. If in 50 years, we find out that the predictions made by our models had been wrong (either the measures we take to reduce CO2 don't lead to the results we expected, or the warming we see is outside of the expected ranges) - in the post-mortem of the models, what would we likely say had gone wrong?
- michannne 7y ago
  Climate research is one of the most politically-infused research avenues, among the likes of nuclear and genetically modified agriculture. There is money to be made, and lost, depending on public outlook of our climate, and it has a lot of power when used to enforce political ends such as sanctions, subsidies, and could lead to such events like uprisings, occupying of countries and war. Most likely, if climate research is found to be far off the alarming predictions made by most institutions, we'll chalk it up to political meddling/statistical fubbing and move on. If the lifestyle changes for most of the polulation are already in place by then, many will believe it was "for the best, anyway", and I'm inclined to agree with this view - our response to climate change is more important than if climate change was primarily our fault to begin with. I'm not advocating for skewing research in favor of one position or the other, but it enables a public forum of such scale that at the very least, prepares us for dealing with ever-increasing scopes of global issues that impact all life on Earth, which will come in handy when we progress to the point we're dealing with the ethics of extremely advanced technology.
  - imtringued 7y ago
    You're talking about what the media or politicians report. Things like "the climate crisis will come in 12 years" have usually no scientific basis and often are based on much more conservative predictions like 1.5C° warming cannot prevented after 12 years of "business as usual" because temperature increases lag CO2 emissions by several years. This doesn't actually mean that we will see 1.5°C warming within the next 12 years. It might even take 20 years or more. 1.5°C warming will suck but it's not the end of the world. It just means that we will have to adapt to a new way of living and we can't go back to the good old days.
flash_zombie 7y ago
> I’ve always found climate scepticism strange, because of its emphasis on refusing to accept the connection between rising temperatures and CO2. The connection isn't disputed, the causality is. Look at this graph: https://totheleftofcentre.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/400000yearslarge.gif?w=1000 https://totheleftofcentre.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/400000... You can see that most of the time, temperature rises lead increases in CO2. This implies that rising temperature increases CO2 levels, but not necessarily the other way around. If you zoom out even further, the correlation isn't clear anymore at all: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cx5-osJUkAAPkF8.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cx5-osJUkAAPkF8.jpg Lastly, what's even the big issue with changes in global temperatures? Even without humans, this planet would go in and out of ice ages on semi-regular intervals. We can't really control that. Life adapts. In the interest of our descendants, we had better develop technology to deal with a tougher climate, rather than cut down on emissions so that maybe ten or twenty generations can live with a somewhat smaller fallout of manmade climate change.
- KnightOfWords 7y ago
  > Lastly, what's even the big issue with changes in global temperatures? Even without humans, this planet would go in and out of ice ages on semi-regular intervals. We can't really control that. Life adapts. The issue is the rate of change, which is unprecedented. The path we're currently on will devastate ecosystems and cause a huge drop in crop production.
  - flash_zombie 7y ago
    > The issue is the rate of change, which is unprecedented. Perhaps over some arbitrary timeframes within the measured record. On the other hand, a volcanic eruption can immediately cause a change of 1K or more. But let's say it is unprecedented, so what? > The path we're currently on will devastate ecosystems and cause a huge drop in crop production. [citation needed] This has been predicted numerous times, it didn't come to pass. Crop production depends on the weather far more than the climate, we have to deal with that issue anyway. So let's deal with the actual issue, not part of what may cause the issue, some of the time. As for ecosystems getting "devastated" - so what? They get devastated one way or another all the time. They recover.
rimliu 7y ago
How about the rising temperatures and the decreasing number of pirates? There is nothing "basic" in climate science unless you assume that CO2 is the only factor.

decoyworker 7y ago

My father has been going on about cloud coverage lately. The conspiracy being that they have a cooling effect and invalidate some liberal climate change agenda.

tonmoy 7y ago
Cloud coverage impact on global temperature is one of the last unknowns hard for us to predict. Hence it is the last defense any serious scientist for denial
scottlocklin 7y ago
Cloud coverage is in fact left out of most climatological models (too hard to predict, and they would dominate all other factors). https://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/role.html#COMP_MODS https://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/role.html#COMP_MODS
- decoyworker 7y ago
  Yeah, being left out of the models plays into the conspiracy factor. My father mentioned that climate scientists are shills knowingly leaving out this data.
_ph_ 7y ago
We have a clearly observed and measured rapid global warming in the last decades. So whatever mechanism might counteract global warming, it obviously allowed the rapid warming to happen and unless anyone can present a plausible model why the counteraction should get stronger than any further warming, it won't prevent further warming.

agent008t 7y ago

Sorry to hijack, but I have been curious about this for a while and have not been able to find any references from anyone working on the climate models or who has studied the forecasting methodology in detail. If in 50 years, we find out that the predictions made by our models had been wrong (either the measures we take to reduce CO2 don't lead to the results we expected, or the warming we see is outside of the expected ranges) - in the post-mortem of the models, what would we likely say had gone wrong?

michannne 7y ago
Climate research is one of the most politically-infused research avenues, among the likes of nuclear and genetically modified agriculture. There is money to be made, and lost, depending on public outlook of our climate, and it has a lot of power when used to enforce political ends such as sanctions, subsidies, and could lead to such events like uprisings, occupying of countries and war. Most likely, if climate research is found to be far off the alarming predictions made by most institutions, we'll chalk it up to political meddling/statistical fubbing and move on. If the lifestyle changes for most of the polulation are already in place by then, many will believe it was "for the best, anyway", and I'm inclined to agree with this view - our response to climate change is more important than if climate change was primarily our fault to begin with. I'm not advocating for skewing research in favor of one position or the other, but it enables a public forum of such scale that at the very least, prepares us for dealing with ever-increasing scopes of global issues that impact all life on Earth, which will come in handy when we progress to the point we're dealing with the ethics of extremely advanced technology.
- imtringued 7y ago
  You're talking about what the media or politicians report. Things like "the climate crisis will come in 12 years" have usually no scientific basis and often are based on much more conservative predictions like 1.5C° warming cannot prevented after 12 years of "business as usual" because temperature increases lag CO2 emissions by several years. This doesn't actually mean that we will see 1.5°C warming within the next 12 years. It might even take 20 years or more. 1.5°C warming will suck but it's not the end of the world. It just means that we will have to adapt to a new way of living and we can't go back to the good old days.

flash_zombie 7y ago

> I’ve always found climate scepticism strange, because of its emphasis on refusing to accept the connection between rising temperatures and CO2. The connection isn't disputed, the causality is. Look at this graph: https://totheleftofcentre.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/400000yearslarge.gif?w=1000 https://totheleftofcentre.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/400000... You can see that most of the time, temperature rises lead increases in CO2. This implies that rising temperature increases CO2 levels, but not necessarily the other way around. If you zoom out even further, the correlation isn't clear anymore at all: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cx5-osJUkAAPkF8.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cx5-osJUkAAPkF8.jpg Lastly, what's even the big issue with changes in global temperatures? Even without humans, this planet would go in and out of ice ages on semi-regular intervals. We can't really control that. Life adapts. In the interest of our descendants, we had better develop technology to deal with a tougher climate, rather than cut down on emissions so that maybe ten or twenty generations can live with a somewhat smaller fallout of manmade climate change.

KnightOfWords 7y ago
> Lastly, what's even the big issue with changes in global temperatures? Even without humans, this planet would go in and out of ice ages on semi-regular intervals. We can't really control that. Life adapts. The issue is the rate of change, which is unprecedented. The path we're currently on will devastate ecosystems and cause a huge drop in crop production.
- flash_zombie 7y ago
  > The issue is the rate of change, which is unprecedented. Perhaps over some arbitrary timeframes within the measured record. On the other hand, a volcanic eruption can immediately cause a change of 1K or more. But let's say it is unprecedented, so what? > The path we're currently on will devastate ecosystems and cause a huge drop in crop production. [citation needed] This has been predicted numerous times, it didn't come to pass. Crop production depends on the weather far more than the climate, we have to deal with that issue anyway. So let's deal with the actual issue, not part of what may cause the issue, some of the time. As for ecosystems getting "devastated" - so what? They get devastated one way or another all the time. They recover.

rimliu 7y ago

How about the rising temperatures and the decreasing number of pirates? There is nothing "basic" in climate science unless you assume that CO2 is the only factor.