4 ms·

The term climate change took over global warming because of how laughable wrong all the "global warming" predictions failed to come true and disastrously so. L

The term climate change took over global warming because of how laughable wrong all the "global warming" predictions failed to come true and disastrously so. Like most prophecies by religions do.

ineedasername 6y ago
The global average temperature is increasing. How is that a failed prediction?
- wrycoder 6y ago
  15,000 years ago, there was ice a mile thick where I sit. We are still coming out of that glaciation. It is warming. C - catastrophic - there is no evidence in the historic temperature record that anything unusual is happening. A - anthropogenic - the human contribution is small, compared to natural sources. G - global - not local. W - warming - see above. In addition, there is no good evidence that the slight warming in the last 50 years is causing extreme weather events, and there isn’t any good theory to support it, either.
  - tzs 6y ago
    > A - anthropogenic - the human contribution is small, compared to natural sources CO2 from burning fossil fuels and burning plants has a different isotope mix than does CO2 from other sources. We can use this to tell how much of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from that kind of burning. There aren't enough wildfires or other natural sources to account for more than a small fraction of it. Hence, we can prove that most of that type CO2 comes from human sources. And that type account for most of the increase since pre-industrial times.
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    > C - catastrophic - there is no evidence in the historic temperature record that anything unusual is happening. There is no evidence in the historic temperature record that the Earth has ever been this hot in the past million years. > A - anthropogenic - the human contribution is small, compared to natural sources. The human contribution to CO2 and other greenhouse gases is not small, it is almost the entire quantity. There is very little contribution to greenhouse gas emissions from non-human sources (of course, methane from cows for example is a human source). > G - global - not local. Not sure what you mean here. > W - warming - see above. see above. > In addition, there is no good evidence that the slight warming in the last 50 years is causing extreme weather events, and there isn’t any good theory to support it, either. The brainwashing propaganda from interested science deniers is not better informed than the practically unanimous conclusions of all the earth's climate scientists. The Earth is headed for catastrophe, both ecologically and geopolitically. Sea level rise is already above initial predictions, and that effect alone will displace the 300 million people currently living in one of the lowest plains by the sea in the world, in Bangladesh. The coming migrant crisis at the confluence of India, Pakistan and China, three nuclear power with an uneasy relationship, would be cause for serious concern alone. Of course, the ever increasing droughts and extreme temperatures (including >50C wet-bulb temperatures, which can kill healthy adults outright) in those same regions makes them a literal hotbed for social and political upheaval like the world has never seen. You are simply deluded if you think everything is fine.
    - rebuilder 6y ago
      >The coming migrant crisis at the confluence of India, Pakistan and China, three nuclear power with an uneasy relationship, would be cause for serious concern alone. This is what really keeps me up at night. Nevermind the direct effects of 4+ degrees of warming if we fail to stop it - we'll start WW3 long before the temperatures hit that. So that's why the key here is strong international organisations. We need to co-operate both to have any chance of making the changes that need to be made to keep warming within survival bounds, and to keep discussions open so when conflicts do arise, they are less likely to result in war.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    One third of the CO2 in the atmosphere is man made. It's not small. 66% times 1.5 is 100% meaning humans have added 50% CO2 on top of natural CO2 in the atmosphere.
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    C: Irrelevant. It doesn't matter if this is unusual on a geological time scale. It can be catastrophic either way. A: The enormous consensus based on available evidence contradicts you here in your implication that human contributions are irrelevant. Natural sources have also been balanced out by natural sinks. Humans are both destroying natural sinks and releasing more of our own. The issue is also not whether we "own" a majority of the emissions, it's about upsetting a delicate balance. Chaotic metastable systems do not necessarily need a big push in order to have a massive impact. Sensitivity to initial conditions is very high. G & W: you're not expressing your criticism here. Global average temperatures are rising. What is you dispute with that? Your last point: I'm not aware of alternative theory for the observed changes that fits available evidencr, while on the other hand there are plenty of research papers like the following: https://www.pnas.org/content/113/42/11770 https://www.pnas.org/content/113/42/11770. Whether or not there is smoking-gun level proof, available evidence fits the theory.

The term climate change took over global warming because of how laughable wrong all the "global warming" predictions failed to come true and disastrously so. Like most prophecies by religions do.

ineedasername 6y ago

The global average temperature is increasing. How is that a failed prediction?

wrycoder 6y ago
15,000 years ago, there was ice a mile thick where I sit. We are still coming out of that glaciation. It is warming. C - catastrophic - there is no evidence in the historic temperature record that anything unusual is happening. A - anthropogenic - the human contribution is small, compared to natural sources. G - global - not local. W - warming - see above. In addition, there is no good evidence that the slight warming in the last 50 years is causing extreme weather events, and there isn’t any good theory to support it, either.
- tzs 6y ago
  > A - anthropogenic - the human contribution is small, compared to natural sources CO2 from burning fossil fuels and burning plants has a different isotope mix than does CO2 from other sources. We can use this to tell how much of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from that kind of burning. There aren't enough wildfires or other natural sources to account for more than a small fraction of it. Hence, we can prove that most of that type CO2 comes from human sources. And that type account for most of the increase since pre-industrial times.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  > C - catastrophic - there is no evidence in the historic temperature record that anything unusual is happening. There is no evidence in the historic temperature record that the Earth has ever been this hot in the past million years. > A - anthropogenic - the human contribution is small, compared to natural sources. The human contribution to CO2 and other greenhouse gases is not small, it is almost the entire quantity. There is very little contribution to greenhouse gas emissions from non-human sources (of course, methane from cows for example is a human source). > G - global - not local. Not sure what you mean here. > W - warming - see above. see above. > In addition, there is no good evidence that the slight warming in the last 50 years is causing extreme weather events, and there isn’t any good theory to support it, either. The brainwashing propaganda from interested science deniers is not better informed than the practically unanimous conclusions of all the earth's climate scientists. The Earth is headed for catastrophe, both ecologically and geopolitically. Sea level rise is already above initial predictions, and that effect alone will displace the 300 million people currently living in one of the lowest plains by the sea in the world, in Bangladesh. The coming migrant crisis at the confluence of India, Pakistan and China, three nuclear power with an uneasy relationship, would be cause for serious concern alone. Of course, the ever increasing droughts and extreme temperatures (including >50C wet-bulb temperatures, which can kill healthy adults outright) in those same regions makes them a literal hotbed for social and political upheaval like the world has never seen. You are simply deluded if you think everything is fine.
  - rebuilder 6y ago
    >The coming migrant crisis at the confluence of India, Pakistan and China, three nuclear power with an uneasy relationship, would be cause for serious concern alone. This is what really keeps me up at night. Nevermind the direct effects of 4+ degrees of warming if we fail to stop it - we'll start WW3 long before the temperatures hit that. So that's why the key here is strong international organisations. We need to co-operate both to have any chance of making the changes that need to be made to keep warming within survival bounds, and to keep discussions open so when conflicts do arise, they are less likely to result in war.
- imtringued 6y ago
  One third of the CO2 in the atmosphere is man made. It's not small. 66% times 1.5 is 100% meaning humans have added 50% CO2 on top of natural CO2 in the atmosphere.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  C: Irrelevant. It doesn't matter if this is unusual on a geological time scale. It can be catastrophic either way. A: The enormous consensus based on available evidence contradicts you here in your implication that human contributions are irrelevant. Natural sources have also been balanced out by natural sinks. Humans are both destroying natural sinks and releasing more of our own. The issue is also not whether we "own" a majority of the emissions, it's about upsetting a delicate balance. Chaotic metastable systems do not necessarily need a big push in order to have a massive impact. Sensitivity to initial conditions is very high. G & W: you're not expressing your criticism here. Global average temperatures are rising. What is you dispute with that? Your last point: I'm not aware of alternative theory for the observed changes that fits available evidencr, while on the other hand there are plenty of research papers like the following: https://www.pnas.org/content/113/42/11770 https://www.pnas.org/content/113/42/11770. Whether or not there is smoking-gun level proof, available evidence fits the theory.