4 ms·

Its almost like they're predicting that we're a few thousand years into the process of coming out of an ice age. More at 11.

lukifer 7y ago
I don't think there's any disputing the overall trendline, which far predates the Industrial Revolution. Yet that doesn't mean that human activity isn't also meaningfully impactful. Though it's hardly scientific, from a layperson's perspective, I find xkcd's climate history megacomic instructive: https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/. That rapid-ish spike after 1900 is by no means a smoking gun, but it's a hint that there may be more going on than a ten-thousand-year gradual geological process (which I don't think any climate scientist disputes the presence of). I know of at least a few cases, where skeptics have changed their minds due to new evidence (Richard Muller [0] comes to mind). I'm curious if there are any instances of reputable scientists with sufficient training in the relevant fields, who went from true believers to significant skepticism of anthropogenic influence. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of...
- huffmsa 7y ago
  I'm mostly concerned about the scale were looking at. A 50-100 year uptick is nothing on the timescales that the planet operates on. Even 20k years is miniscule.
  - lukifer 7y ago
    No dispute. And yet, I don't see any other instances of the a near-45-degree angle spike over the last 20k years (with the obvious caveat that our data on the past is imperfect). Like I said, not a smoking gun; just a clue that it's worth digging into. And from a Bayesian perspective, one must ask: what are the odds that that rising temperature would happen to correlate with CO2, for entirely unrelated reasons? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sme8WQ4Wb5w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sme8WQ4Wb5w Don't get me wrong, I find Greta-style alarmism and claims of "extinction" to be counter-productive. But given how difficult it is to get nerds to agree on anything, the fact that there are so few credible scientists on the other side of the issue gives me pause. Pure groupthink? Maybe. Hardly unprecedented. But we've been examining the data and improving the models for decades (including from those with a strong financial incentive to debunk AGW), and yet the scientific consensus continues trending in one direction. Skepticism is a good thing, but the evidence for AGW can't merely be handwaved away by causal narrative.
    - huffmsa 7y ago
      By no means do I want to hand wave it, I'm just personally not convinced of the presented outcomes. I know that alarmism is the best way to get attention, but its also the best way for me to think you're a zealot who should be ignored.

lukifer 7y ago

I don't think there's any disputing the overall trendline, which far predates the Industrial Revolution. Yet that doesn't mean that human activity isn't also meaningfully impactful. Though it's hardly scientific, from a layperson's perspective, I find xkcd's climate history megacomic instructive: https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/. That rapid-ish spike after 1900 is by no means a smoking gun, but it's a hint that there may be more going on than a ten-thousand-year gradual geological process (which I don't think any climate scientist disputes the presence of). I know of at least a few cases, where skeptics have changed their minds due to new evidence (Richard Muller [0] comes to mind). I'm curious if there are any instances of reputable scientists with sufficient training in the relevant fields, who went from true believers to significant skepticism of anthropogenic influence. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of...

huffmsa 7y ago
I'm mostly concerned about the scale were looking at. A 50-100 year uptick is nothing on the timescales that the planet operates on. Even 20k years is miniscule.
- lukifer 7y ago
  No dispute. And yet, I don't see any other instances of the a near-45-degree angle spike over the last 20k years (with the obvious caveat that our data on the past is imperfect). Like I said, not a smoking gun; just a clue that it's worth digging into. And from a Bayesian perspective, one must ask: what are the odds that that rising temperature would happen to correlate with CO2, for entirely unrelated reasons? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sme8WQ4Wb5w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sme8WQ4Wb5w Don't get me wrong, I find Greta-style alarmism and claims of "extinction" to be counter-productive. But given how difficult it is to get nerds to agree on anything, the fact that there are so few credible scientists on the other side of the issue gives me pause. Pure groupthink? Maybe. Hardly unprecedented. But we've been examining the data and improving the models for decades (including from those with a strong financial incentive to debunk AGW), and yet the scientific consensus continues trending in one direction. Skepticism is a good thing, but the evidence for AGW can't merely be handwaved away by causal narrative.
  - huffmsa 7y ago
    By no means do I want to hand wave it, I'm just personally not convinced of the presented outcomes. I know that alarmism is the best way to get attention, but its also the best way for me to think you're a zealot who should be ignored.