4 ms·
That is almost reasonable. But it's still naturalistic thinking, i.e. whatever happens without humans is good. The real questions should be: what climate do we
by akvadrako 7y ago
That is almost reasonable. But it's still naturalistic thinking, i.e. whatever happens without humans is good.
The real questions should be: what climate do we want and how much power do we have to effect it?
If the climate changes naturally but we don't want it and can stop it, maybe we should. For example, we expect this interglacial period to end between years 10k - 30k, corresponding to about a 10°C drop.
Also, the way best way to reverse current climate trends might be different then stopping the major cause.
- manigandham 7y ago> "how much power do we have to effect it" This is entirely predicated on understanding how much we have affected it so far and how that effect has changed over time. How do we know we can stop it? Are efforts toward stopping it (given the Earth has gone through cycles before) more useful than adapting? Blindly saying we can reverse something that we can't and instead should be adapting for is just as bad. Unfortunately any discussion around this is constantly devolves into emotional dispute rather than rational debate.
- akvadrako 7y ago> This is entirely predicated on understanding how much we have affected it so far Obviously, this isn't true. It's possible to have a future effect on things you haven't yet changed and visa versa.
- manigandham 7y agoI never said it's not possible. I'm asking how do we know how much we can effect it in the future if we're not entirely clear on how much we've affected it so far and how that effect has changed itself? Or do you already have an answer to the 2nd question you posed?
- akvadrako 7y agoJust because you know how much effect you’ve had doesn’t mean you know how much control you have. They are related but the relationship is not clear. And only the second question matters.
- manigandham 7y agoSo whats the answer?
- manigandham 7y agoTo be clear, any forecast requires a model based on previous historical data. Otherwise it's not a forecast, it's just a random guess.