8 ms·

We have global lockdowns with dramatically reduced amounts of automobile usage. We should be seeing at least some reduction in temperatures. Also kind of inacc

We have global lockdowns with dramatically reduced amounts of automobile usage. We should be seeing at least some reduction in temperatures. Also kind of inaccurate title. 115,000 years ago during the eemian period the Earth was 2 celcius warmer than today. More than what the predictions of climate change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeot... 50 million years ago the Earth was 14 celcius warmer.

scarmig 6y ago
> We have global lockdowns with dramatically reduced amounts of automobile usage. We should be seeing at least some reduction in temperatures. Temperatures are correlated with the stocks, not the flows, of CO2 in the atmosphere.
redwoolf 6y ago
This assumes that consumer use of automobiles contributes in a significant way to global warming. Supply chain use of automobiles (trucks, trains, planes, ships, etc.) continued throughout lockdown as goods still needed to be delivered to consumers.
- sleepysysadmin 6y ago
  >This assumes that consumer use of automobiles contributes in a significant way to global warming. Supply chain use of automobiles (trucks, trains, planes, ships, etc.) continued throughout lockdown as goods still needed to be delivered to consumers. You are right that we haven't completely ended use of transportation but we have seen decreases in all transportation. That is the prevailing argument is that we need to reduce CO2 which certainly has happened in 2020. If the fix to climate change is far more significant of a reduction. I posit that the fix is untenable or the premise is false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle#/media/File:Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle#/media/File:Carbon... Why does climate change people always focus on 1800s to today? Perhaps it has something to do with a very large swing in solar activity?
  - cycomanic 6y ago
    This stuff has been debunked over and over. Just one example showing increasing temperatures with low solar activity http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/11/record-heat-despite-a-cold-sun/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/11/record... Also arguments about temperature millions of years ago are not really meaningful, humans (and most other of the current species) did not live on earth at the time. But at least the deniers have now as predicted progressed from "it's not happening", to "it's happening but it's not that bad", soon we will be at "it is definitely happening but it's to late now to do anything so might as well do nothing"
    - sleepysysadmin 6y ago
      >This stuff has been debunked over and over. Debunked? I linked the science around the subject. I have never seen anyone debunk these scientific theories. >. Just one example showing increasing temperatures with low solar activity http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/11/record http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/11/record... Your link is looking at 1960s and closer. My links are looking at the last 20,000 years. Solar activity dips are not measured in such a short period of time. The solar activity is in the 'modern maximum' for the entire graph from 1960s on. You are not debunking anything with that link. It is of no surprise to me that during a 'modern maximum' solar cycle that temperatures are going up. >Also arguments about temperature millions of years ago are not really meaningful, humans (and most other of the current species) did not live on earth at the time. The 6 celcius increase in the last 20,000 to 10,000 years ago was something humans greatly benefitted from. The IPCC says that we are going to warm 1.4celcius by 2100. I'm 100% certain that humans can survive and very likely thrive because of this warming. >But at least the deniers have now as predicted progressed from "it's not happening", to "it's happening but it's not that bad", soon we will be at "it is definitely happening but it's to late now to do anything so might as well do nothing" Are you asserting that I am a denier? I have never been a denier. No, my links literally prove climate change is real. My problem is that people like Al Gore who outright lied about Florida being under water right now. Miami should be completely destroyed right now according to Al Gore. The problem I have is that people are exaggerating the risk of climate change for their personal gain. Al Gore has significant investment in that field. My problem is that we have the Mayan Calendar doomsday people now jumping on climate change and saying it's the end times if we dont do something within 10 years. Worse yet, that 'something' is not in line with fixing the problem. It's in line with their political ideology.
jkinudsjknds 6y ago
If CO2 release goes down, we would expect the acceleration of climate change to go down. The actual rate of change, or at least, the (large) portion of the rate influenced by greenhouse gases, will only turn negative if the amount of gases absorbed by plants, the ocean, and other chemical processes exceeds the amount produced. We're likely not hitting that even in 2020. Even if we did, we would hardly be moving the needle long term.
beowulfey 6y ago
We are currently on path to surpass 4-5C increases globally by 2100. And it's an exponential growth; who knows when it might taper off. I certainly don't expect it will just stop increasing when we hit that, although maybe it will. Also, 50 million years ago the temperature was that warm but it also happens to be around the time when an impact of a large asteroid caused one of the greatest extinction events in the history of the planet[1]. Not sure if that's relevant to the temperature aspect or not. Just throwing it out there. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous–Paleogene_extinction_event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous–Paleogene_extinctio...
- sleepysysadmin 6y ago
  >We are currently on path to surpass 4-5C increases globally by 2100. And it's an exponential growth; who knows when it might taper off. I certainly don't expect it will just stop increasing when we hit that, although maybe it will. Happy to tell you that we aren't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_Pathway#Projections_based_on_the_RCPs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_P... The 4-5celcius number you provide comes from the IPCC RCP8.5. Though would be more accurately represented at 2.5-5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_Pathway#RCP_8.5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_P... As you can read there. This is a grossly overestimated projection that's worse than worse case scenario. With all current actions taken by humans on Earth to reduce emissions. We are currently on the RCP4.5 path. So more like an average of 1.8celcius increase. Which is great news, very little impact to our society. >Also, 50 million years ago the temperature was that warm but it also happens to be around the time when an impact of a large asteroid caused one of the greatest extinction events in the history of the planet[1]. Not sure if that's relevant to the temperature aspect or not. Just throwing it out there. Here's the graph. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeot... As you can see there's quite the variation over the last 500 million years. For about 200 million years the Earth was 2-10 celcius warmer until that asteroid. Long story short, the climate change issue is far less problematic than you believe.
  - beowulfey 6y ago
gmuslera 6y ago
We weren't there, we might not survive on that kind of climate for long periods, or the plants/animals we depend on. And the change is happening fast, fast enough to not leave much room for adaptation, you will get extinction of key pieces needed for our survival instead of adaptation. And something that is slower to adapt is a civilization tied to the ground by buildings and agricultural fields. And even if you can call "record" what can be indirectly deduced from ice cores, the records they are talking are methodically measuring and registering them live. Those records are the broken ones. With the lockdown, less circulation and flying, it may have helped to add less carbon to the atmosphere than we the previous year. But adding less doesn't mean that will be a reduction of what is already is in excess, the carbon added to the atmosphere could stay there from decades to centuries, and we keep adding new carbon to that furnace (fossil fuels, and positive feedback releasing frozen carbon around the poles). Even with full zero emission the carbon that is already there will keep increasing global temperature averages.
- sleepysysadmin 6y ago
  >We weren't there, we might not survive on that kind of climate for long periods, or the plants/animals we depend on. And the change is happening fast, fast enough to not leave much room for adaptation, you will get extinction of key pieces needed for our survival instead of adaptation. And something that is slower to adapt is a civilization tied to the ground by buildings and agricultural fields. 20,000 years ago the Earth was 6 celcius colder. From 20,000-10,000 years ago the Earth warmed 6 celcius. Humans benefitted greatly from this warming and we didn't yet have technology which enables us to survive extinction. I believe asserting that climate change of an average increase of 1.8celcius as extinction level is quite inaccurate. >And even if you can call "record" what can be indirectly deduced from ice cores, the records they are talking are methodically measuring and registering them live. Those records are the broken ones. We could discuss why you believe that science to be inaccurate. Could you tell me more please? >With the lockdown, less circulation and flying, it may have helped to add less carbon to the atmosphere than we the previous year. But adding less doesn't mean that will be a reduction of what is already is in excess, the carbon added to the atmosphere could stay there from decades to centuries, and we keep adding new carbon to that furnace (fossil fuels, and positive feedback releasing frozen carbon around the poles). Even with full zero emission the carbon that is already there will keep increasing global temperature averages. I'm not sure I necessarily follow. The paris/kyoto accords are focusing on reducing emissions but your assertion is that we are passed the limit and that it continues due to a positive feedback loop. Then the proposals by the paris and kyoto accords are wrong. That would make me want to re-evaluate the entire topic. Did you know that after 9/11 terrorist attacks and air traffic being grounded for 3 days dropped global temperatures by 1.1 celcius? Certainly something the airlines don't want the public to know; the amount of planes with giant engines spewing ridiculous amounts of diesel/jet fuel in the upper atmosphere has a huge effect on temperature. Obviously we didnt end airtravel but we have dramatically reduced the amount of planes in the air. People are staying home in lockdown. We absolutely should be seeing reductions in temperature. Since we aren't, it makes me question the original premise.

scarmig 6y ago

> We have global lockdowns with dramatically reduced amounts of automobile usage. We should be seeing at least some reduction in temperatures. Temperatures are correlated with the stocks, not the flows, of CO2 in the atmosphere.

redwoolf 6y ago

This assumes that consumer use of automobiles contributes in a significant way to global warming. Supply chain use of automobiles (trucks, trains, planes, ships, etc.) continued throughout lockdown as goods still needed to be delivered to consumers.

sleepysysadmin 6y ago
>This assumes that consumer use of automobiles contributes in a significant way to global warming. Supply chain use of automobiles (trucks, trains, planes, ships, etc.) continued throughout lockdown as goods still needed to be delivered to consumers. You are right that we haven't completely ended use of transportation but we have seen decreases in all transportation. That is the prevailing argument is that we need to reduce CO2 which certainly has happened in 2020. If the fix to climate change is far more significant of a reduction. I posit that the fix is untenable or the premise is false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle#/media/File:Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle#/media/File:Carbon... Why does climate change people always focus on 1800s to today? Perhaps it has something to do with a very large swing in solar activity?
- cycomanic 6y ago
  This stuff has been debunked over and over. Just one example showing increasing temperatures with low solar activity http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/11/record-heat-despite-a-cold-sun/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/11/record... Also arguments about temperature millions of years ago are not really meaningful, humans (and most other of the current species) did not live on earth at the time. But at least the deniers have now as predicted progressed from "it's not happening", to "it's happening but it's not that bad", soon we will be at "it is definitely happening but it's to late now to do anything so might as well do nothing"
  - sleepysysadmin 6y ago
    >This stuff has been debunked over and over. Debunked? I linked the science around the subject. I have never seen anyone debunk these scientific theories. >. Just one example showing increasing temperatures with low solar activity http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/11/record http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/11/record... Your link is looking at 1960s and closer. My links are looking at the last 20,000 years. Solar activity dips are not measured in such a short period of time. The solar activity is in the 'modern maximum' for the entire graph from 1960s on. You are not debunking anything with that link. It is of no surprise to me that during a 'modern maximum' solar cycle that temperatures are going up. >Also arguments about temperature millions of years ago are not really meaningful, humans (and most other of the current species) did not live on earth at the time. The 6 celcius increase in the last 20,000 to 10,000 years ago was something humans greatly benefitted from. The IPCC says that we are going to warm 1.4celcius by 2100. I'm 100% certain that humans can survive and very likely thrive because of this warming. >But at least the deniers have now as predicted progressed from "it's not happening", to "it's happening but it's not that bad", soon we will be at "it is definitely happening but it's to late now to do anything so might as well do nothing" Are you asserting that I am a denier? I have never been a denier. No, my links literally prove climate change is real. My problem is that people like Al Gore who outright lied about Florida being under water right now. Miami should be completely destroyed right now according to Al Gore. The problem I have is that people are exaggerating the risk of climate change for their personal gain. Al Gore has significant investment in that field. My problem is that we have the Mayan Calendar doomsday people now jumping on climate change and saying it's the end times if we dont do something within 10 years. Worse yet, that 'something' is not in line with fixing the problem. It's in line with their political ideology.

jkinudsjknds 6y ago

If CO2 release goes down, we would expect the acceleration of climate change to go down. The actual rate of change, or at least, the (large) portion of the rate influenced by greenhouse gases, will only turn negative if the amount of gases absorbed by plants, the ocean, and other chemical processes exceeds the amount produced. We're likely not hitting that even in 2020. Even if we did, we would hardly be moving the needle long term.

beowulfey 6y ago

We are currently on path to surpass 4-5C increases globally by 2100. And it's an exponential growth; who knows when it might taper off. I certainly don't expect it will just stop increasing when we hit that, although maybe it will. Also, 50 million years ago the temperature was that warm but it also happens to be around the time when an impact of a large asteroid caused one of the greatest extinction events in the history of the planet[1]. Not sure if that's relevant to the temperature aspect or not. Just throwing it out there. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous–Paleogene_extinction_event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous–Paleogene_extinctio...

sleepysysadmin 6y ago
>We are currently on path to surpass 4-5C increases globally by 2100. And it's an exponential growth; who knows when it might taper off. I certainly don't expect it will just stop increasing when we hit that, although maybe it will. Happy to tell you that we aren't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_Pathway#Projections_based_on_the_RCPs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_P... The 4-5celcius number you provide comes from the IPCC RCP8.5. Though would be more accurately represented at 2.5-5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_Pathway#RCP_8.5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_P... As you can read there. This is a grossly overestimated projection that's worse than worse case scenario. With all current actions taken by humans on Earth to reduce emissions. We are currently on the RCP4.5 path. So more like an average of 1.8celcius increase. Which is great news, very little impact to our society. >Also, 50 million years ago the temperature was that warm but it also happens to be around the time when an impact of a large asteroid caused one of the greatest extinction events in the history of the planet[1]. Not sure if that's relevant to the temperature aspect or not. Just throwing it out there. Here's the graph. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeot... As you can see there's quite the variation over the last 500 million years. For about 200 million years the Earth was 2-10 celcius warmer until that asteroid. Long story short, the climate change issue is far less problematic than you believe.
- beowulfey 6y ago

gmuslera 6y ago

We weren't there, we might not survive on that kind of climate for long periods, or the plants/animals we depend on. And the change is happening fast, fast enough to not leave much room for adaptation, you will get extinction of key pieces needed for our survival instead of adaptation. And something that is slower to adapt is a civilization tied to the ground by buildings and agricultural fields. And even if you can call "record" what can be indirectly deduced from ice cores, the records they are talking are methodically measuring and registering them live. Those records are the broken ones. With the lockdown, less circulation and flying, it may have helped to add less carbon to the atmosphere than we the previous year. But adding less doesn't mean that will be a reduction of what is already is in excess, the carbon added to the atmosphere could stay there from decades to centuries, and we keep adding new carbon to that furnace (fossil fuels, and positive feedback releasing frozen carbon around the poles). Even with full zero emission the carbon that is already there will keep increasing global temperature averages.

sleepysysadmin 6y ago
>We weren't there, we might not survive on that kind of climate for long periods, or the plants/animals we depend on. And the change is happening fast, fast enough to not leave much room for adaptation, you will get extinction of key pieces needed for our survival instead of adaptation. And something that is slower to adapt is a civilization tied to the ground by buildings and agricultural fields. 20,000 years ago the Earth was 6 celcius colder. From 20,000-10,000 years ago the Earth warmed 6 celcius. Humans benefitted greatly from this warming and we didn't yet have technology which enables us to survive extinction. I believe asserting that climate change of an average increase of 1.8celcius as extinction level is quite inaccurate. >And even if you can call "record" what can be indirectly deduced from ice cores, the records they are talking are methodically measuring and registering them live. Those records are the broken ones. We could discuss why you believe that science to be inaccurate. Could you tell me more please? >With the lockdown, less circulation and flying, it may have helped to add less carbon to the atmosphere than we the previous year. But adding less doesn't mean that will be a reduction of what is already is in excess, the carbon added to the atmosphere could stay there from decades to centuries, and we keep adding new carbon to that furnace (fossil fuels, and positive feedback releasing frozen carbon around the poles). Even with full zero emission the carbon that is already there will keep increasing global temperature averages. I'm not sure I necessarily follow. The paris/kyoto accords are focusing on reducing emissions but your assertion is that we are passed the limit and that it continues due to a positive feedback loop. Then the proposals by the paris and kyoto accords are wrong. That would make me want to re-evaluate the entire topic. Did you know that after 9/11 terrorist attacks and air traffic being grounded for 3 days dropped global temperatures by 1.1 celcius? Certainly something the airlines don't want the public to know; the amount of planes with giant engines spewing ridiculous amounts of diesel/jet fuel in the upper atmosphere has a huge effect on temperature. Obviously we didnt end airtravel but we have dramatically reduced the amount of planes in the air. People are staying home in lockdown. We absolutely should be seeing reductions in temperature. Since we aren't, it makes me question the original premise.