4 ms·

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/TempCha

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
        "The warming" we're currently experiencing is not natural. That we're coming out of an ice age doesn't matter for the warming we've been experiencing in the last hundred years.
        exporectomy 6y ago
        What's it got to do with the last 100 years? We're talking about a 100,000 year temperature cycle and Greenland's melting cycle which started before humans influenced it so it wasn't caused by humans. I think all you people replying to me think I'm a global warming denier but you can't argue with what I've said because I'm right so you're just saying random facts instead.
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.

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
      "The warming" we're currently experiencing is not natural. That we're coming out of an ice age doesn't matter for the warming we've been experiencing in the last hundred years.
      - exporectomy 6y ago
        What's it got to do with the last 100 years? We're talking about a 100,000 year temperature cycle and Greenland's melting cycle which started before humans influenced it so it wasn't caused by humans. I think all you people replying to me think I'm a global warming denier but you can't argue with what I've said because I'm right so you're just saying random facts instead.

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.