4 ms·

I'm in the camp of climate change is real, the human impact is grossly overstated. More importantly, we have bigger, more pressing issues. #1 is pollution, es

I'm in the camp of climate change is real, the human impact is grossly overstated. More importantly, we have bigger, more pressing issues. #1 is pollution, especially water pollution. We're still dumping toxic chemicals all over the planet. #2 is water management. On the east coast of the US, we're tearing up millions of acres of farm land to build suburbs while California is trying to grow food in the desert. Aquifers are being depleted in several states. There's a real looming disaster and it's got nothing to do with CO2.

esarbe 7y ago
Well. According to IPCC 2018, we're CURRENTLY between +0.75 and +1.25°C, with the very real possibility of reaching +2°C by the 2040. These effects are a direct consequence of our dumping massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We thought that we had about 30 years to mitigate some of the worst damage. But now - holy shit! - the arctic permafrost is melting, about 70 years earlier than expected. And it's starting to release methane, a way more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Sure, it rapidly decays in the atmosphere, but not before kicking us to about +4°C. This is the temperature range where some Scientists fear that frozen methane from the ocean floor will start to be released. (Did you know that at about +5°Celsius the phytoplankton will start dying off? ) So, we have a massive temperature increase at an unprecedented speed that makes huge areas of earths most populous regions inhospitable or even inhabitable. Do you think the Syrian refugee crisis was bad? Think about ~1 BILLION PEOPLE on the search for greener (literally) pastures. Do you think they will be welcome with open arms? Yeah, you bet.. Agriculture will be severely impacted. Not only by the heat, but also by the massive die-off that ensues. Most of the animals on earth have a lifecycle that's very closely tuned to the hum of the seasons. At +4°C you can kiss all that goodbye. The only things that will survive are generalist species that have a lifecycle not tied to the seasons. (Cockroaches maybe. Certainly not butterflies. Enjoy them while they last!) So, yes, there are many other consequences of our predatory exploitation of our ecosphere. Many that are almost as pressing as the climate crisis. But just almost.
- linuxftw 7y ago
  > These effects are a direct consequence of our dumping massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. And this is where this disconnect is. For every point you can produce, I can produce a counter point. > And it's starting to release methane Methane has been getting released for millennia (if not much, much longer) from the ocean floor. > we have a massive temperature increase I object to this statement. > at an unprecedented speed I also object to this statement. > Think about ~1 BILLION PEOPLE on the search for greener We're building a wall.
  - esarbe 7y ago
    > And this is where this disconnect is. For every point you can produce, I can produce a counter point. No, you cannot. This is scientific consensus, there's nothing to debate about it. Even if your 2 year-old denies shitting their pants; you can smell it. You are the authority on changing diapers, not them. With climate change you are not the parent, you're the smelly two year old. You don't get to decide what's scientific fact, proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Now, if you go ahead and actually produce valid criticism on the current climate models and their predictions, have some valid credentials with regards to climate modelling and have some credible research to show for, I'll take everything aforementioned back and put on the dirty diapers myself. > I object to this statement. If you want to raise an objection, you have to make an argument for _why_ you're raising an objection. Otherwise it doesn't count. > Methane has been getting released for millennia (if not much, much longer) from the ocean floor. There is drinking from a glass and drowning in a pool. > We're building a wall. Unfortunately, no empire in the history of mankind was ever able to hold back a migrating population with walls. Ask the Romans, ask the Chinese.
    - linuxftw 7y ago
      > This is scientific consensus, there's nothing to debate about it. This is where you're wrong. > proven beyond any reasonable doubt. You're not the arbiter of what's reasonable doubt. It's not unreasonable to say that we used to have an ice age, now we don't, world was already warming, humans had little impact. You can stamp your feet all you wish, but nobody's buying it, except for a small vocal minority. Newsflash: you're not smarter than everyone else, we're perfectly capable of reaching our own conclusions. > if you go ahead and actually produce valid criticism on the current climate models and their predictions You should spend some of your own time researching both sides of the argument, like some of us had, and draw your own conclusions. Here's some basic facts: 1) Earth has been hotter in the past. 2) CO2 levels were much higher in the past. 3) There is evidence that CO2 lags temperature increase, thus isn't causative. 4) Solar output is highly correlated with temperature fluctuations. We can get down into debating the temperature data itself, the revisions, for or against. To me, it comes down to some basic scrutiny. How accurate were the instruments used 100 years ago to record temperature? How often were the instruments calibrated? How much of the Earth's surface did we record the temperature for? How much mass of the Earth's temperature was recorded? For example, how much stratification in temperature is there in the ocean, and which depths were measured? > If you want to raise an objection You used non-specific and exaggerating terms to describe recent temperature changes. You have no factual basis for asserting that the temperature change is 'massive' nor that the speed of change is 'unprecedented.' First, a massive change would be more than a couple percent. Second, even without human induced warming, the models predict warming. What's the delta? As for 'unprecendented,' there's simply not enough data here. This all also implies that you trust the data, which many of us don't. At best, the data is a loose approximation, not a concrete set of facts. > There is drinking from a glass and drowning in a pool. Feel free to backup this claim.

esarbe 7y ago

Well. According to IPCC 2018, we're CURRENTLY between +0.75 and +1.25°C, with the very real possibility of reaching +2°C by the 2040. These effects are a direct consequence of our dumping massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We thought that we had about 30 years to mitigate some of the worst damage. But now - holy shit! - the arctic permafrost is melting, about 70 years earlier than expected. And it's starting to release methane, a way more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Sure, it rapidly decays in the atmosphere, but not before kicking us to about +4°C. This is the temperature range where some Scientists fear that frozen methane from the ocean floor will start to be released. (Did you know that at about +5°Celsius the phytoplankton will start dying off? ) So, we have a massive temperature increase at an unprecedented speed that makes huge areas of earths most populous regions inhospitable or even inhabitable. Do you think the Syrian refugee crisis was bad? Think about ~1 BILLION PEOPLE on the search for greener (literally) pastures. Do you think they will be welcome with open arms? Yeah, you bet.. Agriculture will be severely impacted. Not only by the heat, but also by the massive die-off that ensues. Most of the animals on earth have a lifecycle that's very closely tuned to the hum of the seasons. At +4°C you can kiss all that goodbye. The only things that will survive are generalist species that have a lifecycle not tied to the seasons. (Cockroaches maybe. Certainly not butterflies. Enjoy them while they last!) So, yes, there are many other consequences of our predatory exploitation of our ecosphere. Many that are almost as pressing as the climate crisis. But just almost.

linuxftw 7y ago
> These effects are a direct consequence of our dumping massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. And this is where this disconnect is. For every point you can produce, I can produce a counter point. > And it's starting to release methane Methane has been getting released for millennia (if not much, much longer) from the ocean floor. > we have a massive temperature increase I object to this statement. > at an unprecedented speed I also object to this statement. > Think about ~1 BILLION PEOPLE on the search for greener We're building a wall.
- esarbe 7y ago
  > And this is where this disconnect is. For every point you can produce, I can produce a counter point. No, you cannot. This is scientific consensus, there's nothing to debate about it. Even if your 2 year-old denies shitting their pants; you can smell it. You are the authority on changing diapers, not them. With climate change you are not the parent, you're the smelly two year old. You don't get to decide what's scientific fact, proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Now, if you go ahead and actually produce valid criticism on the current climate models and their predictions, have some valid credentials with regards to climate modelling and have some credible research to show for, I'll take everything aforementioned back and put on the dirty diapers myself. > I object to this statement. If you want to raise an objection, you have to make an argument for _why_ you're raising an objection. Otherwise it doesn't count. > Methane has been getting released for millennia (if not much, much longer) from the ocean floor. There is drinking from a glass and drowning in a pool. > We're building a wall. Unfortunately, no empire in the history of mankind was ever able to hold back a migrating population with walls. Ask the Romans, ask the Chinese.
  - linuxftw 7y ago
    > This is scientific consensus, there's nothing to debate about it. This is where you're wrong. > proven beyond any reasonable doubt. You're not the arbiter of what's reasonable doubt. It's not unreasonable to say that we used to have an ice age, now we don't, world was already warming, humans had little impact. You can stamp your feet all you wish, but nobody's buying it, except for a small vocal minority. Newsflash: you're not smarter than everyone else, we're perfectly capable of reaching our own conclusions. > if you go ahead and actually produce valid criticism on the current climate models and their predictions You should spend some of your own time researching both sides of the argument, like some of us had, and draw your own conclusions. Here's some basic facts: 1) Earth has been hotter in the past. 2) CO2 levels were much higher in the past. 3) There is evidence that CO2 lags temperature increase, thus isn't causative. 4) Solar output is highly correlated with temperature fluctuations. We can get down into debating the temperature data itself, the revisions, for or against. To me, it comes down to some basic scrutiny. How accurate were the instruments used 100 years ago to record temperature? How often were the instruments calibrated? How much of the Earth's surface did we record the temperature for? How much mass of the Earth's temperature was recorded? For example, how much stratification in temperature is there in the ocean, and which depths were measured? > If you want to raise an objection You used non-specific and exaggerating terms to describe recent temperature changes. You have no factual basis for asserting that the temperature change is 'massive' nor that the speed of change is 'unprecedented.' First, a massive change would be more than a couple percent. Second, even without human induced warming, the models predict warming. What's the delta? As for 'unprecendented,' there's simply not enough data here. This all also implies that you trust the data, which many of us don't. At best, the data is a loose approximation, not a concrete set of facts. > There is drinking from a glass and drowning in a pool. Feel free to backup this claim.