6 ms·

It is already well known that the Earth has gone through melting and freezing cycles but we, humans, have surely created* this particular melting cycle. The pr

It is already well known that the Earth has gone through melting and freezing cycles but we, humans, have surely created* this particular melting cycle. The problem is not with the Earth. It is that we, humans, we likely not survive if this cycle of climate change continues.

ctdonath 6y ago
We're at a periodic (125,000 year) temperature peak. Warming is surely a natural event. http://donath.org/Photos/TempChange.PNG http://donath.org/Photos/TempChange.PNG
- lebuffon 6y ago
  Indeed the warming is a natural event. The glaciers melted long before humanity could make any difference. The new bit is that we are helping it along at what is probably an unprecedented rate. So it's not about the change. It is about the rate of change. When I was born the atmosphere had ~314 PPM of CO2. It is now north of 415PPM and going up ~2.5PPM per year. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Now how could that relate to us requiring over 95,000,000 barrels of oil PER DAY to run our civilization? (it is closer to 98M in 2021) https://www.statista.com/statistics/265203/global-oil-production-since-in-barrels-per-day/#:~:text=The%20level%20of%20oil%20production,from%20biomass%20and%20coal%20derivatives https://www.statista.com/statistics/265203/global-oil-produc.... For perspective do some back of the napkin math on the height 98,000,000 barrels of oil would be if you made a 100x100 base of barrels and stacked them vertically. Standard drums have inside dimensions of 572 millimetres (22.5 in) diameter and 851 millimetres (33.5 in) height. (remember that's per day) We have in all probability made the time when coastal cities are flooded happen sooner and it is highly unlikely that we can improve the situation very much in the short term.
- adrianN 6y ago
  No, it's not. Stop spreading false information.
  - ctdonath 6y ago
    Graph is from NOAA ice core data. What's false?
  - exporectomy 6y ago
    He's actually correct on both points. Just look at any source for global temperature over the past million years. Eg. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record
    - furins 6y ago
      It's not that simple. The graphs you are pointing at do not include the last century, and even if - they are tracing temperature by a proxy: bentic foraminifers dO16/O18. They are organisms living in the oceans, not necessarily in equilibrium (=synchronized) with atmospheric O and a proxy for average global temperatures. They are good indicators for general trends, so to understand the range of temperatures in a given period, but for very short periods of time they are unable to provide a measure of the rate of change. +3 degrees in a million year is manageable by many species,+3° in a century it isn't.
      - exporectomy 6y ago
        That doesn't stop it being true. If the temperature is even higher than the million year record, we're still at a peak.
        furins 6y ago
        temperature is not a concern, Life can exists in a relative large range of temperatures. The problem is the speed of temperature rise, that is incompatible with the speed some species can migrate from now-hostile areas. Dinosaurs didn't died because the asteroid hit their head, but because of the abrupt climate change triggered by it. The key word is "abrupt" not "change".
        adrianN 6y ago
- neuronic 6y ago
  Ah yes, the overwhelming majority of scientists is in disarray over proof of the unusually fast rate of climate change with a decades long political campaign to finally make our profit-oriented societies pay some attention to the issue. But in comes the HN smartass who definitely knows better than thousands of trained PhDs cumulating millions of man hours of research and convinces us all with a hyperlink to donath.org.
  - vixen99 6y ago
    Why not destroy such sceptics (on HN or anywhere else) regarding the rate of climate change and related topics? All you have to do is demonstrate that the data presented by them & their interpretation is garbage, nonsense or whatever else you want to call it. Must surely be easier than presenting a classic logical fallacy - argument by authority and thinking that nails it. Maybe the link is indeed total rubbish but talking about man-hours and 'trained PhD's' is irrelevant. Feynman explains nicely: https://youtu.be/EYPapE-3FRw https://youtu.be/EYPapE-3FRw. Science is a matter of a debate on facts versus theory not a vote-counting appeal on behalf of the supposed position of an ill-defined electorate.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      I can demonstrate to someone that the Earth is round, but it'll never convince a Flat Earther. Said skeptics have been repeatedly debunked, here and elsewhere. There's more to it than merely being right. As an example, a sitting US Senator used "it snowed in winter" to "debunk" the idea of climate change. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/02/26/jim-inhofes-snowball-has-disproven-climate-change-once-and-for-all/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/02/26/ji...
    - ctdonath 6y ago
      Indeed. I presented facts, he resorts to insults. Who's scientific?
      - aww_dang 6y ago
        Scientism dictates that the ordained technocrats have an exclusive license on what is science-y. Apparently incivility is fine when it supports the establishment consensus. Intellectual curiosity indeed.
zerealshadowban 6y ago
Have you looked at climate changes over the entire Cenozoic, let alone the climate record over the last 300,000 years? We're lucky to be alive during a warm, interglacial period. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum
exporectomy 6y ago
You're spreading disinformation. Do your homework before repeating random exaggerated claims you've heard on the internet. Climate change is not predicted to exterminate humans. This melting cycle was happening before the industrial revolution and was not created by humans.
- eloff 6y ago
  > This melting cycle was happening before the industrial revolution and was not created by humans. If you're referring to our current predicament, it looks like you have your own homework to do.
  - exporectomy 6y ago
    You really can just Google this. We came out of an ice age 10,000 years ago and glaciers are still melting from then. Why are so many commenters just making false knee-jerk claims without paying attention to well established science?
    - eloff 6y ago
      There are two melting cycles overlapping here. The cycle coming out of the last ice age, and the human caused warming. That latter is really stark in the velocity of change. It's not yet that stark in total magnitude, but it's also not linear with most of the change coming at the end in the future. It's looking like we may be headed for 4 degrees of average warming, which is pretty terrifying. That might just be enough to end the cycles of ice ages that's been happening for millions of years - which could be overall positive for us long term. But shorter term the disruptions to our cities, countries, and food supply is unprecedented in recorded history.
    - furins 6y ago
      I'm a geologist and I've focused on palaeoclimatology putting an eye on the rate of climate change. I've wrote several articles on international peer-reviewed journals. I can say, basing on 20+years of study and lab/field work, that what is happening is really concerning because human emissions are summing up to natural Milankovitch cycles, altering the rate of climate change with unpredictable (since they are unprecedented) implications for food chain supply and society.
p1necone 6y ago
Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/
- drallison 6y ago
  This puts everything in context.... Visualization is a powerful tool.

ctdonath 6y ago

We're at a periodic (125,000 year) temperature peak. Warming is surely a natural event. http://donath.org/Photos/TempChange.PNG http://donath.org/Photos/TempChange.PNG

lebuffon 6y ago
Indeed the warming is a natural event. The glaciers melted long before humanity could make any difference. The new bit is that we are helping it along at what is probably an unprecedented rate. So it's not about the change. It is about the rate of change. When I was born the atmosphere had ~314 PPM of CO2. It is now north of 415PPM and going up ~2.5PPM per year. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Now how could that relate to us requiring over 95,000,000 barrels of oil PER DAY to run our civilization? (it is closer to 98M in 2021) https://www.statista.com/statistics/265203/global-oil-production-since-in-barrels-per-day/#:~:text=The%20level%20of%20oil%20production,from%20biomass%20and%20coal%20derivatives https://www.statista.com/statistics/265203/global-oil-produc.... For perspective do some back of the napkin math on the height 98,000,000 barrels of oil would be if you made a 100x100 base of barrels and stacked them vertically. Standard drums have inside dimensions of 572 millimetres (22.5 in) diameter and 851 millimetres (33.5 in) height. (remember that's per day) We have in all probability made the time when coastal cities are flooded happen sooner and it is highly unlikely that we can improve the situation very much in the short term.
adrianN 6y ago
No, it's not. Stop spreading false information.
- ctdonath 6y ago
  Graph is from NOAA ice core data. What's false?
- exporectomy 6y ago
  He's actually correct on both points. Just look at any source for global temperature over the past million years. Eg. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record
  - furins 6y ago
    It's not that simple. The graphs you are pointing at do not include the last century, and even if - they are tracing temperature by a proxy: bentic foraminifers dO16/O18. They are organisms living in the oceans, not necessarily in equilibrium (=synchronized) with atmospheric O and a proxy for average global temperatures. They are good indicators for general trends, so to understand the range of temperatures in a given period, but for very short periods of time they are unable to provide a measure of the rate of change. +3 degrees in a million year is manageable by many species,+3° in a century it isn't.
    - exporectomy 6y ago
      That doesn't stop it being true. If the temperature is even higher than the million year record, we're still at a peak.
      - furins 6y ago
        temperature is not a concern, Life can exists in a relative large range of temperatures. The problem is the speed of temperature rise, that is incompatible with the speed some species can migrate from now-hostile areas. Dinosaurs didn't died because the asteroid hit their head, but because of the abrupt climate change triggered by it. The key word is "abrupt" not "change".
      - adrianN 6y ago
neuronic 6y ago
Ah yes, the overwhelming majority of scientists is in disarray over proof of the unusually fast rate of climate change with a decades long political campaign to finally make our profit-oriented societies pay some attention to the issue. But in comes the HN smartass who definitely knows better than thousands of trained PhDs cumulating millions of man hours of research and convinces us all with a hyperlink to donath.org.
- vixen99 6y ago
  Why not destroy such sceptics (on HN or anywhere else) regarding the rate of climate change and related topics? All you have to do is demonstrate that the data presented by them & their interpretation is garbage, nonsense or whatever else you want to call it. Must surely be easier than presenting a classic logical fallacy - argument by authority and thinking that nails it. Maybe the link is indeed total rubbish but talking about man-hours and 'trained PhD's' is irrelevant. Feynman explains nicely: https://youtu.be/EYPapE-3FRw https://youtu.be/EYPapE-3FRw. Science is a matter of a debate on facts versus theory not a vote-counting appeal on behalf of the supposed position of an ill-defined electorate.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    I can demonstrate to someone that the Earth is round, but it'll never convince a Flat Earther. Said skeptics have been repeatedly debunked, here and elsewhere. There's more to it than merely being right. As an example, a sitting US Senator used "it snowed in winter" to "debunk" the idea of climate change. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/02/26/jim-inhofes-snowball-has-disproven-climate-change-once-and-for-all/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/02/26/ji...
  - ctdonath 6y ago
    Indeed. I presented facts, he resorts to insults. Who's scientific?
    - aww_dang 6y ago
      Scientism dictates that the ordained technocrats have an exclusive license on what is science-y. Apparently incivility is fine when it supports the establishment consensus. Intellectual curiosity indeed.

zerealshadowban 6y ago

Have you looked at climate changes over the entire Cenozoic, let alone the climate record over the last 300,000 years? We're lucky to be alive during a warm, interglacial period. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum

exporectomy 6y ago

You're spreading disinformation. Do your homework before repeating random exaggerated claims you've heard on the internet. Climate change is not predicted to exterminate humans. This melting cycle was happening before the industrial revolution and was not created by humans.

eloff 6y ago
> This melting cycle was happening before the industrial revolution and was not created by humans. If you're referring to our current predicament, it looks like you have your own homework to do.
- exporectomy 6y ago
  You really can just Google this. We came out of an ice age 10,000 years ago and glaciers are still melting from then. Why are so many commenters just making false knee-jerk claims without paying attention to well established science?
  - eloff 6y ago
    There are two melting cycles overlapping here. The cycle coming out of the last ice age, and the human caused warming. That latter is really stark in the velocity of change. It's not yet that stark in total magnitude, but it's also not linear with most of the change coming at the end in the future. It's looking like we may be headed for 4 degrees of average warming, which is pretty terrifying. That might just be enough to end the cycles of ice ages that's been happening for millions of years - which could be overall positive for us long term. But shorter term the disruptions to our cities, countries, and food supply is unprecedented in recorded history.
  - furins 6y ago
    I'm a geologist and I've focused on palaeoclimatology putting an eye on the rate of climate change. I've wrote several articles on international peer-reviewed journals. I can say, basing on 20+years of study and lab/field work, that what is happening is really concerning because human emissions are summing up to natural Milankovitch cycles, altering the rate of climate change with unpredictable (since they are unprecedented) implications for food chain supply and society.

p1necone 6y ago

Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/

drallison 6y ago
This puts everything in context.... Visualization is a powerful tool.