9 ms·

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

> 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.
  - eesmith 7y ago
    Are you quibbling about what "huge drop" means? Here's a citation - https://www.pnas.org/content/114/35/9326 https://www.pnas.org/content/114/35/9326 "Temperature increase reduces global yields of major crops in four independent estimates". > Without CO2 fertilization, effective adaptation, and genetic improvement, each degree-Celsius increase in global mean temperature would, on average, reduce global yields of wheat by 6.0%, rice by 3.2%, maize by 7.4%, and soybean by 3.1%. When you write "This has been predicted numerous times", do you mean, for example, the predicted famines of the mid-1900s, saved by the Green Revolution? Borlaug's Nobel Prize speech cautious us technical success in raising food production is only a temporary victory - we must also limit our population. When you write "Crop production depends on the weather far more than the climate" ... how is that even a valid argument? Where are the Canadian orange groves? How's the Brazilian maple syrup industry? They don't exist, because the climate is wrong for those crops in those areas. You write "They recover" .. Citation needed. Simple counter-example - the Icelandic forests from the Norse era have not recovered. Or, 10,000 years ago the Sahara was green. Now it's a desert. Why hasn't that ecosystem recovered?
    - nec4b 7y ago
      And Antarctica had tropical climate once and now it's and ice desert. Things move slowly on geological scale, 10,000 years is a blip.
    - flash_zombie 7y ago
      > Are you quibbling about what "huge drop" means? No, I'm sincerely interested. > Without CO2 fertilization, effective adaptation, and genetic improvement, each degree-Celsius increase in global mean temperature would, on average, reduce global yields of wheat by 6.0%, rice by 3.2%, maize by 7.4%, and soybean by 3.1%. "Without adaptation" is not a plausible scenario. Of course there will be adaptation. But let's take those numbers anyway, and take a very liberal estimate of six degrees of temperature increase: That's 36% (wheat), 19.2% (rice), 44% (maize) and 18.6% (soy), respectively. That may sound alarming if all that produce had to be turned into food that people need to live. In practice, most of it goes to livestock or even biofuel production. Being forced to have less cattle and fuel might be good for the climate, no? > Borlaug's Nobel Prize speech cautious us technical success in raising food production is only a temporary victory - we must also limit our population. Perhaps, but the best way to limit your population growth is to deliver a better standard of living. > When you write "Crop production depends on the weather far more than the climate" ... how is that even a valid argument? Where are the Canadian orange groves? How's the Brazilian maple syrup industry? They don't exist, because the climate is wrong for those crops in those areas. I'm talking about actual crop production, not hypothetical crop production. Nobody is starving because farmlands that never existed stop producing. With bad weather, that's different. If we're talking about climate and agriculture, the argument goes both ways: If global temperature rises, then new places will start making sense for certain forms of agriculture, just as old places will stop making sense. This also will happen regardless of human intervention.
- neuronic 7y ago
  If I may add to your sentence, specifically the last claim in your quote is what puts their train of thought on a collision course with reality. Life adapts, when it can. The rate of change you mentioned ensures that a majority of life will not be able to adapt and it's not impossible that another K-T level extinction event is already taking place. Geologically speaking, the speed at which the Earth is changing from human-induced climate change could just as well be a meteorite impact. Looking at global conflict resolution ability I fear that we have no hope to stop it.
  - flash_zombie 7y ago
    > Life adapts, when it can. The rate of change you mentioned ensures that a majority of life will not be able to adapt and it's not impossible that another K-T level extinction event is already taking place. It's also "not impossible" that a meteorite wipes us all out tomorrow. Which serious scientist is predicting a K-T level extinction event? Serious predictions are talking about a couple of degrees over thousands of years. That's not out of the ordinary in terms of variance for life on earth right now. Sure, some species may have to migrate, some will go extinct one way or another, but not a K-T level event.
    - pjc50 7y ago
      > Serious predictions are talking about a couple of degrees over thousands of years. Serious predictions are talking about a couple of degrees over the next century. That's very different. It may be hard to separate the climate change extinctions from the regular habitat destructions that are already ongoing, though.
- aldoushuxley001 7y ago
  The rate of change isn't unprecedented. In fact, most of the times the earth has come out of ice ages, similar to now, there have been rates of change in temperature similar to ours now.
crocowhile 7y ago
You've missed the point. It is well known that co2 is a greenhouse gas. You can do the experiment yourself with some children using a plastic water bottle, a thermometer, and a mixture of baking soda and vinegar. We understand this physics extremely well. Denying the causal effect of co2 on warming is akin to denying the causal effect of gravity towards an apple falling from a tree.
- ThomPete 7y ago
  There is a difference between can be demonstrated in a lab and what can get demonstrated in a larger system. The climate is a non-linear chaotic system it has positive and negative feedback loops. You can't replicate the climate in a simple experiment which is why we try with models and they are depending on which initial conditions we put in. If we understood it extremely well we wouldn't come up with a rather large range in the predictions.
  - eesmith 7y ago
    Should we have continued with CFC emissions then? And not put restrictions on sulfur dioxide emissions? FWIW, we don't have to understand it extremely well, only well enough to affect policy changes. A 99% probability of an estimated increase of 2-4°C can be considered a rather large range, but enough certainty to know that it's a problem. (Numbers made up for demonstration purposes.)
    - ThomPete 7y ago
      We should improve the environment wherever and whenever we can which is what people demand when the get pulled out of poverty and into the middle class. But the idea that we should upend the use of fossil fuels without any realistic alternative is simply anti-human and will for sure cause millions to die. I haven't heard of a single scientifically demonstrated consequence of climate change that would lead to that and thus I see no need to worry more about climate change more than pulling people out of poverty. We should always try and make energy cleaner and less pollutant but wouldn't you agree we should always make a cost benefit analysis and weigh the positive and negative consequences of our decisions?
yk 7y ago
Thankfully climate scientists don't just eyeball a single graph. And as a matter of fact, you conflate two things, one is that we know that now industrial emission is the cause for global warming and the other is, that in the past warming has lead to the release of CO2. These are two different things, and taken together only implies a positive feedback loop. On the second question, the problem with global warming is, that everybody talks about the weather, and all our systems are well adapted to the current climate. Concretely, there are farmers at the edge of the Sahara, who are adapted to a semi-arid conditions, and when the Sahara moves south, then they have to deal with desert conditions. Similar, when the Great Barrier Reef moves south, then there are dive centers without a reef north of the new location. So we will have to adapt to a warmer climate anyhow, but not cutting down emissions is an entirely unforced error, it makes global warming worse, without any concrete benefit. Cutting down emissions is precisely the "smaller fallout of manmade climate change" you are arguing for.
- flash_zombie 7y ago
  > These are two different things, and taken together only implies a positive feedback loop. If it's a positive feedback loop, then why hasn't there been a runaway greenhouse effect in the past? Something must have stopped it. What was that? > Concretely, there are farmers at the edge of the Sahara, who are adapted to a semi-arid conditions, and when the Sahara moves south, then they have to deal with desert conditions. Yes, they will. They'll have to move. The Sahara didn't use to be a desert for all of human history, it used to be fertile at one point. Now it isn't anymore, so we don't have agriculture there. So what? > Similar, when the Great Barrier Reef moves south, then there are dive centers without a reef north of the new location. First-world problems... > So we will have to adapt to a warmer climate anyhow, but not cutting down emissions is an entirely unforced error, it makes global warming worse, without any concrete benefit. No concrete benefit? You mean, besides the fact that our entire standard of living rests on the fact that we can emit CO2 more or less undisturbed? > Cutting down emissions is precisely the "smaller fallout of manmade climate change" you are arguing for. Not if you take into account the standard of living of the people calling the shots, right here and now.
dominicr 7y ago
> In the interest of our descendants, we had better develop technology to deal with a tougher climate, rather than cut down on emissions Or do both. Let's make the world less hostile to live in for billions of people, whilst also providing technology & resources for them to survive. About your graph: historical global temperature changes are not the same as anthropomorphic global temperature changes. Past periods of high CO2 do not contradict the notion that CO2 leads to higher global temperatures. Indeed, it confirms that there is a strong relationship between the two. There are other sources of temperature change so you can't use one indicator to prove there is no effect. What climate scientists have done is look at ALL the possible drivers of climate change and ruled out all of the natural causes as contributing to the current very sharp and ongoing rise in temperature. Everything that's left is caused by human activity. On the right of that graph, there is a vertical red line. That's not an axis or a border, that's the recent rise in CO2 levels, and it's unprecedented. The overwhelming majority of evidence shows that human activity, mainly greenhouse gases, is causing climate change. Misrepresenting one graph does not change that.
- flash_zombie 7y ago
  > Past periods of high CO2 do not contradict the notion that CO2 leads to higher global temperatures. Indeed, it confirms that there is a strong relationship between the two. The relationship, at least in the smaller graph, isn't in question. The causality is. I didn't say it contradicts the causality, I say it doesn't support the causality. If you look at the larger graph, whatever relationship there is between CO2 and global temperature becomes indiscernible. > There are other sources of temperature change so you can't use one indicator to prove there is no effect You can't prove a negative in the first place. Of course there's bound to be some effect, but how large is it really? > On the right of that graph, there is a vertical red line. That's not an axis or a border, that's the recent rise in CO2 levels, and it's unprecedented. The rise may be unprecedented, the level isn't. > The overwhelming majority of evidence shows that human activity, mainly greenhouse gases, is causing climate change. That's a strong statement for what it is at best a discernible correlation. I'm willing to take it on faith. Humans cause climate change? Now what? We absolutely have to drop everything and start cooling the planet? Until the next ice age, when presumably we'll have to warm it?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
wiggler00m 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. 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. False dichotomy. Why not do both?
- ThomPete 7y ago
  Because we don't actually have any realistic alternatives yet and the ones proposed would be much more expensive than just dealing with the issues as they arrive. Can you mention one scientifically demonstrated consequences of climate change that we don't know how to deal with with todays let alone future technologies?
  - eesmith 7y ago
    (As a clarification, that's "global warming causing climate change".) When you write "deal with", do you mean to include mass migrations, loss of populated areas, and civil unrest? Because that's how we dealt with, for example, the Dust Bowl. One example is that there does not seem any way to save Miami in its current form, using today's technology or any realistic technology we could develop. Quoting https://www.businessinsider.com/miami-floods-sea-level-rise-solutions-2018-4?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/miami-floods-sea-level-rise-... : > “Miami as we know it today — there’s virtually no scenario under which you can imagine it existing at the end of the century,” Goodell said. “It may be some smaller version of Miami that incorporates platform houses and floating structures.” ... > And while there is much that Florida can learn from these other places, no one has answers to looming threats like water rising through the ground underneath. “The solutions that are going to be used to save cities like Miami Beach probably haven’t been developed yet,” Mowry said. Or from https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20170403-miamis-fight-against-sea-level-rise https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20170403-miamis-fight-aga... : > But the question isn’t whether this work will save every community: it won’t. Even those tasked with making their cities resilient admit that, at some point in the future, certain areas here will no longer be “viable” places to live. Rather, the challenge is to do enough to ensure that the economy as a whole continues to thrive and that tourists still come to enjoy the sun, sand – and swelling sea. We can "deal with" that by mass migration to move. Or letting them die. But I don't think that's what you mean?
tasty_freeze 7y ago
Here is a great, low emotion description that covers the "CO2 lags temperature change". Potholer54 cites his claims, and does a lot of work to run down where claims first originated, then reads that paper instead of just citing some random web blogger or popular news article. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ3PzYU1N7A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ3PzYU1N7A One of the problems cited: the temperature/CO2 graph probably came from an antarctic ice core sample ... and temperature leading/lagging there is different than in non-polar locations. Second, the climate is a complex feedback system; there isn't one independent variable and everything else is dependent. If something forces any of the variables in the feedback system it can affect the other variables. For instance, say the artificial release of CO2 by humans results in the thawing of the arctic, releasing gigatons of methane, at which point CO2 might no longer be the primary driver. Over geologic time there are different causes for these forcings, but that doesn't mean that the current forcing (human released CO2) isn't the current problem. He covers all of that and more, much better, in 13 minutes. [EDIT] I forgot to address "what's even the big issue with changes in global temperatures?" That is a supremely cavalier attitude. Nobody is saying AGW is going to kill off all life. In the long term life will recover. But in the short term we humans are going to have to deal with the consequences: displacement of millions of people through crop failures and loss of coast, disruption of economic systems, and more civil unrest. The US military is gaming out these scenarios because they believe the science, not because they are pinko tree huggers who hate freedom.
- flash_zombie 7y ago
  > One of the problems cited: the temperature/CO2 graph probably came from an antarctic ice core sample ... and temperature leading/lagging there is different than in non-polar locations. Specifically, he points out that CO2 lags temperature by hundreds of years in the southern hemisphere, but that temperature lags CO2 by again hundreds of years in the northern hemisphere. CO2 is claimed to have accelerated natural warming through a feedback loop - until it didn't, and temperatures began drifting down again. That's fair enough. That's reasonably nuanced. I'm missing the extent to which this feedback loop actually made an impact though, because clearly it can't be the dominant driver or ultimate control lever. Otherwise, we'd have had a runaway greenhouse already. > Nobody is saying AGW is going to kill off all life. One might get that impression from the media narrative though. > But in the short term we humans are going to have to deal with the consequences: displacement of millions of people through crop failures and loss of coast, disruption of economic systems, and more civil unrest. I don't think that's such a big deal, all things concerned. Sometimes, people have to move. Sometimes, crops fail. Sometimes, coasts move. Sometimes, there's civil unrest. Telling people in China or Brazil that they'll have to cut down on their emissions is going to cause civil unrest. "Vote for me, I'll make you poorer" is not a winning political provision. > The US military is gaming out these scenarios because they believe the science, not because they are pinko tree huggers who hate freedom. They're also gaming out scenarios of mass epidemics, or political secession. What do you expect them to do?

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.
- eesmith 7y ago
  Are you quibbling about what "huge drop" means? Here's a citation - https://www.pnas.org/content/114/35/9326 https://www.pnas.org/content/114/35/9326 "Temperature increase reduces global yields of major crops in four independent estimates". > Without CO2 fertilization, effective adaptation, and genetic improvement, each degree-Celsius increase in global mean temperature would, on average, reduce global yields of wheat by 6.0%, rice by 3.2%, maize by 7.4%, and soybean by 3.1%. When you write "This has been predicted numerous times", do you mean, for example, the predicted famines of the mid-1900s, saved by the Green Revolution? Borlaug's Nobel Prize speech cautious us technical success in raising food production is only a temporary victory - we must also limit our population. When you write "Crop production depends on the weather far more than the climate" ... how is that even a valid argument? Where are the Canadian orange groves? How's the Brazilian maple syrup industry? They don't exist, because the climate is wrong for those crops in those areas. You write "They recover" .. Citation needed. Simple counter-example - the Icelandic forests from the Norse era have not recovered. Or, 10,000 years ago the Sahara was green. Now it's a desert. Why hasn't that ecosystem recovered?
  - nec4b 7y ago
    And Antarctica had tropical climate once and now it's and ice desert. Things move slowly on geological scale, 10,000 years is a blip.
  - flash_zombie 7y ago
    > Are you quibbling about what "huge drop" means? No, I'm sincerely interested. > Without CO2 fertilization, effective adaptation, and genetic improvement, each degree-Celsius increase in global mean temperature would, on average, reduce global yields of wheat by 6.0%, rice by 3.2%, maize by 7.4%, and soybean by 3.1%. "Without adaptation" is not a plausible scenario. Of course there will be adaptation. But let's take those numbers anyway, and take a very liberal estimate of six degrees of temperature increase: That's 36% (wheat), 19.2% (rice), 44% (maize) and 18.6% (soy), respectively. That may sound alarming if all that produce had to be turned into food that people need to live. In practice, most of it goes to livestock or even biofuel production. Being forced to have less cattle and fuel might be good for the climate, no? > Borlaug's Nobel Prize speech cautious us technical success in raising food production is only a temporary victory - we must also limit our population. Perhaps, but the best way to limit your population growth is to deliver a better standard of living. > When you write "Crop production depends on the weather far more than the climate" ... how is that even a valid argument? Where are the Canadian orange groves? How's the Brazilian maple syrup industry? They don't exist, because the climate is wrong for those crops in those areas. I'm talking about actual crop production, not hypothetical crop production. Nobody is starving because farmlands that never existed stop producing. With bad weather, that's different. If we're talking about climate and agriculture, the argument goes both ways: If global temperature rises, then new places will start making sense for certain forms of agriculture, just as old places will stop making sense. This also will happen regardless of human intervention.
neuronic 7y ago
If I may add to your sentence, specifically the last claim in your quote is what puts their train of thought on a collision course with reality. Life adapts, when it can. The rate of change you mentioned ensures that a majority of life will not be able to adapt and it's not impossible that another K-T level extinction event is already taking place. Geologically speaking, the speed at which the Earth is changing from human-induced climate change could just as well be a meteorite impact. Looking at global conflict resolution ability I fear that we have no hope to stop it.
- flash_zombie 7y ago
  > Life adapts, when it can. The rate of change you mentioned ensures that a majority of life will not be able to adapt and it's not impossible that another K-T level extinction event is already taking place. It's also "not impossible" that a meteorite wipes us all out tomorrow. Which serious scientist is predicting a K-T level extinction event? Serious predictions are talking about a couple of degrees over thousands of years. That's not out of the ordinary in terms of variance for life on earth right now. Sure, some species may have to migrate, some will go extinct one way or another, but not a K-T level event.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    > Serious predictions are talking about a couple of degrees over thousands of years. Serious predictions are talking about a couple of degrees over the next century. That's very different. It may be hard to separate the climate change extinctions from the regular habitat destructions that are already ongoing, though.
aldoushuxley001 7y ago
The rate of change isn't unprecedented. In fact, most of the times the earth has come out of ice ages, similar to now, there have been rates of change in temperature similar to ours now.

crocowhile 7y ago

You've missed the point. It is well known that co2 is a greenhouse gas. You can do the experiment yourself with some children using a plastic water bottle, a thermometer, and a mixture of baking soda and vinegar. We understand this physics extremely well. Denying the causal effect of co2 on warming is akin to denying the causal effect of gravity towards an apple falling from a tree.

ThomPete 7y ago
There is a difference between can be demonstrated in a lab and what can get demonstrated in a larger system. The climate is a non-linear chaotic system it has positive and negative feedback loops. You can't replicate the climate in a simple experiment which is why we try with models and they are depending on which initial conditions we put in. If we understood it extremely well we wouldn't come up with a rather large range in the predictions.
- eesmith 7y ago
  Should we have continued with CFC emissions then? And not put restrictions on sulfur dioxide emissions? FWIW, we don't have to understand it extremely well, only well enough to affect policy changes. A 99% probability of an estimated increase of 2-4°C can be considered a rather large range, but enough certainty to know that it's a problem. (Numbers made up for demonstration purposes.)
  - ThomPete 7y ago
    We should improve the environment wherever and whenever we can which is what people demand when the get pulled out of poverty and into the middle class. But the idea that we should upend the use of fossil fuels without any realistic alternative is simply anti-human and will for sure cause millions to die. I haven't heard of a single scientifically demonstrated consequence of climate change that would lead to that and thus I see no need to worry more about climate change more than pulling people out of poverty. We should always try and make energy cleaner and less pollutant but wouldn't you agree we should always make a cost benefit analysis and weigh the positive and negative consequences of our decisions?

yk 7y ago

Thankfully climate scientists don't just eyeball a single graph. And as a matter of fact, you conflate two things, one is that we know that now industrial emission is the cause for global warming and the other is, that in the past warming has lead to the release of CO2. These are two different things, and taken together only implies a positive feedback loop. On the second question, the problem with global warming is, that everybody talks about the weather, and all our systems are well adapted to the current climate. Concretely, there are farmers at the edge of the Sahara, who are adapted to a semi-arid conditions, and when the Sahara moves south, then they have to deal with desert conditions. Similar, when the Great Barrier Reef moves south, then there are dive centers without a reef north of the new location. So we will have to adapt to a warmer climate anyhow, but not cutting down emissions is an entirely unforced error, it makes global warming worse, without any concrete benefit. Cutting down emissions is precisely the "smaller fallout of manmade climate change" you are arguing for.

flash_zombie 7y ago
> These are two different things, and taken together only implies a positive feedback loop. If it's a positive feedback loop, then why hasn't there been a runaway greenhouse effect in the past? Something must have stopped it. What was that? > Concretely, there are farmers at the edge of the Sahara, who are adapted to a semi-arid conditions, and when the Sahara moves south, then they have to deal with desert conditions. Yes, they will. They'll have to move. The Sahara didn't use to be a desert for all of human history, it used to be fertile at one point. Now it isn't anymore, so we don't have agriculture there. So what? > Similar, when the Great Barrier Reef moves south, then there are dive centers without a reef north of the new location. First-world problems... > So we will have to adapt to a warmer climate anyhow, but not cutting down emissions is an entirely unforced error, it makes global warming worse, without any concrete benefit. No concrete benefit? You mean, besides the fact that our entire standard of living rests on the fact that we can emit CO2 more or less undisturbed? > Cutting down emissions is precisely the "smaller fallout of manmade climate change" you are arguing for. Not if you take into account the standard of living of the people calling the shots, right here and now.

dominicr 7y ago

> In the interest of our descendants, we had better develop technology to deal with a tougher climate, rather than cut down on emissions Or do both. Let's make the world less hostile to live in for billions of people, whilst also providing technology & resources for them to survive. About your graph: historical global temperature changes are not the same as anthropomorphic global temperature changes. Past periods of high CO2 do not contradict the notion that CO2 leads to higher global temperatures. Indeed, it confirms that there is a strong relationship between the two. There are other sources of temperature change so you can't use one indicator to prove there is no effect. What climate scientists have done is look at ALL the possible drivers of climate change and ruled out all of the natural causes as contributing to the current very sharp and ongoing rise in temperature. Everything that's left is caused by human activity. On the right of that graph, there is a vertical red line. That's not an axis or a border, that's the recent rise in CO2 levels, and it's unprecedented. The overwhelming majority of evidence shows that human activity, mainly greenhouse gases, is causing climate change. Misrepresenting one graph does not change that.

flash_zombie 7y ago
> Past periods of high CO2 do not contradict the notion that CO2 leads to higher global temperatures. Indeed, it confirms that there is a strong relationship between the two. The relationship, at least in the smaller graph, isn't in question. The causality is. I didn't say it contradicts the causality, I say it doesn't support the causality. If you look at the larger graph, whatever relationship there is between CO2 and global temperature becomes indiscernible. > There are other sources of temperature change so you can't use one indicator to prove there is no effect You can't prove a negative in the first place. Of course there's bound to be some effect, but how large is it really? > On the right of that graph, there is a vertical red line. That's not an axis or a border, that's the recent rise in CO2 levels, and it's unprecedented. The rise may be unprecedented, the level isn't. > The overwhelming majority of evidence shows that human activity, mainly greenhouse gases, is causing climate change. That's a strong statement for what it is at best a discernible correlation. I'm willing to take it on faith. Humans cause climate change? Now what? We absolutely have to drop everything and start cooling the planet? Until the next ice age, when presumably we'll have to warm it?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

wiggler00m 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. 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. False dichotomy. Why not do both?

ThomPete 7y ago
Because we don't actually have any realistic alternatives yet and the ones proposed would be much more expensive than just dealing with the issues as they arrive. Can you mention one scientifically demonstrated consequences of climate change that we don't know how to deal with with todays let alone future technologies?
- eesmith 7y ago
  (As a clarification, that's "global warming causing climate change".) When you write "deal with", do you mean to include mass migrations, loss of populated areas, and civil unrest? Because that's how we dealt with, for example, the Dust Bowl. One example is that there does not seem any way to save Miami in its current form, using today's technology or any realistic technology we could develop. Quoting https://www.businessinsider.com/miami-floods-sea-level-rise-solutions-2018-4?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/miami-floods-sea-level-rise-... : > “Miami as we know it today — there’s virtually no scenario under which you can imagine it existing at the end of the century,” Goodell said. “It may be some smaller version of Miami that incorporates platform houses and floating structures.” ... > And while there is much that Florida can learn from these other places, no one has answers to looming threats like water rising through the ground underneath. “The solutions that are going to be used to save cities like Miami Beach probably haven’t been developed yet,” Mowry said. Or from https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20170403-miamis-fight-against-sea-level-rise https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20170403-miamis-fight-aga... : > But the question isn’t whether this work will save every community: it won’t. Even those tasked with making their cities resilient admit that, at some point in the future, certain areas here will no longer be “viable” places to live. Rather, the challenge is to do enough to ensure that the economy as a whole continues to thrive and that tourists still come to enjoy the sun, sand – and swelling sea. We can "deal with" that by mass migration to move. Or letting them die. But I don't think that's what you mean?

tasty_freeze 7y ago

Here is a great, low emotion description that covers the "CO2 lags temperature change". Potholer54 cites his claims, and does a lot of work to run down where claims first originated, then reads that paper instead of just citing some random web blogger or popular news article. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ3PzYU1N7A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ3PzYU1N7A One of the problems cited: the temperature/CO2 graph probably came from an antarctic ice core sample ... and temperature leading/lagging there is different than in non-polar locations. Second, the climate is a complex feedback system; there isn't one independent variable and everything else is dependent. If something forces any of the variables in the feedback system it can affect the other variables. For instance, say the artificial release of CO2 by humans results in the thawing of the arctic, releasing gigatons of methane, at which point CO2 might no longer be the primary driver. Over geologic time there are different causes for these forcings, but that doesn't mean that the current forcing (human released CO2) isn't the current problem. He covers all of that and more, much better, in 13 minutes. [EDIT] I forgot to address "what's even the big issue with changes in global temperatures?" That is a supremely cavalier attitude. Nobody is saying AGW is going to kill off all life. In the long term life will recover. But in the short term we humans are going to have to deal with the consequences: displacement of millions of people through crop failures and loss of coast, disruption of economic systems, and more civil unrest. The US military is gaming out these scenarios because they believe the science, not because they are pinko tree huggers who hate freedom.

flash_zombie 7y ago
> One of the problems cited: the temperature/CO2 graph probably came from an antarctic ice core sample ... and temperature leading/lagging there is different than in non-polar locations. Specifically, he points out that CO2 lags temperature by hundreds of years in the southern hemisphere, but that temperature lags CO2 by again hundreds of years in the northern hemisphere. CO2 is claimed to have accelerated natural warming through a feedback loop - until it didn't, and temperatures began drifting down again. That's fair enough. That's reasonably nuanced. I'm missing the extent to which this feedback loop actually made an impact though, because clearly it can't be the dominant driver or ultimate control lever. Otherwise, we'd have had a runaway greenhouse already. > Nobody is saying AGW is going to kill off all life. One might get that impression from the media narrative though. > But in the short term we humans are going to have to deal with the consequences: displacement of millions of people through crop failures and loss of coast, disruption of economic systems, and more civil unrest. I don't think that's such a big deal, all things concerned. Sometimes, people have to move. Sometimes, crops fail. Sometimes, coasts move. Sometimes, there's civil unrest. Telling people in China or Brazil that they'll have to cut down on their emissions is going to cause civil unrest. "Vote for me, I'll make you poorer" is not a winning political provision. > The US military is gaming out these scenarios because they believe the science, not because they are pinko tree huggers who hate freedom. They're also gaming out scenarios of mass epidemics, or political secession. What do you expect them to do?