3 ms·

>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 eno

>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.

lotyrin 6y ago
It doesn't matter how frequently or uneventfully my car has been at 0 or 60 mph. If it goes from 60 to 0 too fast (e.g. as it would upon contact with a sturdy tree), I will probably not have a good day. If you're in default on debts and the debt collectors are stalking you, you do need to stop spending and paying down debts -- merely slowing your spending, not paying anything off and then continuing to get collections calls does not rationally conclude with "boy, I guess this whole concept of fiscal responsibility is debunked!"
gmuslera 6y ago
> 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. We were leaving an ice age. The end of it enabled agriculture, more permanent settlements and civilization. Now we are more tied to the land, and we are far more than what we've been 15k years ago. > I believe asserting that climate change of an average increase of 1.8celcius as extinction level is quite inaccurate. Don't look at the photo, look at the movie. You are in the middle of it. Even without our intervention, it will keep warming up because the added carbon to the system. And it is a fast movie. Take https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/ as a reference (it is visual enough, and backed with strong enough science), it took a thousand years to change just a degree, we are doing twice of that amount in 50. >>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? I correct myself, ice cores don't get that far, they can be used to measure less than a million of years ago. The period you said that had like 12ºC over current temperature seem to be the Paleocene-Eocene termal maximum, google for it, it was caused by CO2 (tectonic activity in the oceans) and caused massive extinctions. And still, it was a process that lasted 10k years. We are doing that at a much faster pace. > 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. That positive feedback loop may have smaller dimensions and impact (yet, at least) than what we keep doing. But will add something even if we stop adding. And it is not just adding, but what is in place already. > 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. Regarding the planes for 3 days, we are dealing with global yearly averages of temperatures. What happens over 3 days is weather, not climate.
- sleepysysadmin 6y ago

lotyrin 6y ago

It doesn't matter how frequently or uneventfully my car has been at 0 or 60 mph. If it goes from 60 to 0 too fast (e.g. as it would upon contact with a sturdy tree), I will probably not have a good day. If you're in default on debts and the debt collectors are stalking you, you do need to stop spending and paying down debts -- merely slowing your spending, not paying anything off and then continuing to get collections calls does not rationally conclude with "boy, I guess this whole concept of fiscal responsibility is debunked!"

gmuslera 6y ago

> 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. We were leaving an ice age. The end of it enabled agriculture, more permanent settlements and civilization. Now we are more tied to the land, and we are far more than what we've been 15k years ago. > I believe asserting that climate change of an average increase of 1.8celcius as extinction level is quite inaccurate. Don't look at the photo, look at the movie. You are in the middle of it. Even without our intervention, it will keep warming up because the added carbon to the system. And it is a fast movie. Take https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/ as a reference (it is visual enough, and backed with strong enough science), it took a thousand years to change just a degree, we are doing twice of that amount in 50. >>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? I correct myself, ice cores don't get that far, they can be used to measure less than a million of years ago. The period you said that had like 12ºC over current temperature seem to be the Paleocene-Eocene termal maximum, google for it, it was caused by CO2 (tectonic activity in the oceans) and caused massive extinctions. And still, it was a process that lasted 10k years. We are doing that at a much faster pace. > 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. That positive feedback loop may have smaller dimensions and impact (yet, at least) than what we keep doing. But will add something even if we stop adding. And it is not just adding, but what is in place already. > 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. Regarding the planes for 3 days, we are dealing with global yearly averages of temperatures. What happens over 3 days is weather, not climate.

sleepysysadmin 6y ago