4 ms·

You are probably referring to human made climate change, right? Because the climate will always change, if you’ve heard of glacial ages for example. I don’t kn

You are probably referring to human made climate change, right? Because the climate will always change, if you’ve heard of glacial ages for example. I don’t know, but where I am (Netherlands) it’s been quite cool lately (Max 19C/66F today) and it’s summer. But if I point that out people say it’s part of the human made CG phenomenon. In other words, every temperature manifestation is part of the phenomenon and we’re supposed to have a normal and this is abnormal. Was there ever a normal, really? Measurements of records are also controversial, as technical capacity to measure temperature (including having more thermometers worldwide) has increased overtime.

lovich 5y ago
Oh I can rephrase it if need be. Rephrased Question: What was the last year in recorded history that the global average temperature was lower than average? As a second question, Define x = “normal” || “average” If you are questioning what “x” or “x temperature” is as an axiom, then what is your definition of “x”? I don’t want to talk past you if you have a different definition. If you have a different definition than I do however, I need to understand what that definition is before we have any sort of discussion.
- drukenemo 5y ago
  To my understanding, recorded temperatures don't go that long ago for us to use that alone and establish deviation from the real old past. And as said, the availability of thermometers (specially in the oceans) has increased over time (i.e. more data coming in more recently). This should skew averages. Besides, the validity of thinking in averages in a pretty wild range of temperatures this planet demonstrates could be questioned anyway. Furthermore, cities have grown dramatically in the last century. Urbanisation creates more heat and thermometers in cities (which of course are used as a reference too), have been steadily reflecting that fact, obviously. But the problem is, discussing those things put you in the "petrol head" "let's pollute" field, which is definitely not my case. They are attempts to silence the discussion, in my view.
thangalin 5y ago
> Was there ever a normal, really? Yes: Earth naturally fluctuates between warming and cooling cyclical at a steady rate of change. "The climate has always changed and fluctuated, due to natural drivers that control our climate system. Temperature proxy graphs showing the climate over millions of years---via oxygen isotope data, ice cores, and other geological records---reveals fluctuations from Hothouse worlds to Greenhouse worlds and Icehouse worlds. In the past 10,000 years---due to Milankovitch cyclicity---the Earth has naturally warmed and should do so for ~40,000 years more before the effects reverse, shifting temperatures towards another ice-age. "Since the industrial revolution, humans have expelled copious amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, triggering a dramatic warming over a short time period. The average global temperature was 12˚C during the Last Glacial Maximum. During the following Interglacial period, the average global temperature slowly rose to 13.8˚C. Since 1880, it has increased another 0.6˚ degrees to 14.4˚C (as of 2015). This warming rate is ~50 times faster than the rate of warming during the previous 21,000 years." > Measurements of records are also controversial. Bollocks? I doubt there is any controversy among the majority of climate scientists. https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroug...
- drukenemo 5y ago
  This argument of scientific consensus is what is bollocks. If there aren’t controversies among the majority of climate scientists I think this is a worrisome sign of science stuck on a loop. Scientific inquiry and disagreements are part of the scientific process which should be expected - seeing the difficulty of grasping most topics of that scale. To me it speaks more of who and what research is funded and a distorted way of doing science. That said, we’re mostly dealing with models here. I can expect this community to love graphs and models, but also to know how unstable and unreliable they can be. In other words, they often fail to communicate (with) reality. In the climate change field, we can see that by the consistent failure to predict the climate future such as rising of the oceans and other extreme heat predictions going back the 80s or 90s. There is a lot of money to be made with this perspective (heard the saying- what hurt can it be to pollute less?). Taxes and more taxes and government partnering with private players to offer solutions to this potentially fabricated problem (even if only by promoting models that agree with the story). And that is just one of the benefits that can be gained from this narrative. Power grabs and regulation is also of interest here, in my view. Then, to defend these interests, you repress and silence scientists who disagree and accuse all opposition of conspiracy. Check who created this term, by the way. Was it a private, independent smart individual or the government?

lovich 5y ago

Oh I can rephrase it if need be. Rephrased Question: What was the last year in recorded history that the global average temperature was lower than average? As a second question, Define x = “normal” || “average” If you are questioning what “x” or “x temperature” is as an axiom, then what is your definition of “x”? I don’t want to talk past you if you have a different definition. If you have a different definition than I do however, I need to understand what that definition is before we have any sort of discussion.

drukenemo 5y ago
To my understanding, recorded temperatures don't go that long ago for us to use that alone and establish deviation from the real old past. And as said, the availability of thermometers (specially in the oceans) has increased over time (i.e. more data coming in more recently). This should skew averages. Besides, the validity of thinking in averages in a pretty wild range of temperatures this planet demonstrates could be questioned anyway. Furthermore, cities have grown dramatically in the last century. Urbanisation creates more heat and thermometers in cities (which of course are used as a reference too), have been steadily reflecting that fact, obviously. But the problem is, discussing those things put you in the "petrol head" "let's pollute" field, which is definitely not my case. They are attempts to silence the discussion, in my view.

thangalin 5y ago

> Was there ever a normal, really? Yes: Earth naturally fluctuates between warming and cooling cyclical at a steady rate of change. "The climate has always changed and fluctuated, due to natural drivers that control our climate system. Temperature proxy graphs showing the climate over millions of years---via oxygen isotope data, ice cores, and other geological records---reveals fluctuations from Hothouse worlds to Greenhouse worlds and Icehouse worlds. In the past 10,000 years---due to Milankovitch cyclicity---the Earth has naturally warmed and should do so for ~40,000 years more before the effects reverse, shifting temperatures towards another ice-age. "Since the industrial revolution, humans have expelled copious amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, triggering a dramatic warming over a short time period. The average global temperature was 12˚C during the Last Glacial Maximum. During the following Interglacial period, the average global temperature slowly rose to 13.8˚C. Since 1880, it has increased another 0.6˚ degrees to 14.4˚C (as of 2015). This warming rate is ~50 times faster than the rate of warming during the previous 21,000 years." > Measurements of records are also controversial. Bollocks? I doubt there is any controversy among the majority of climate scientists. https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroug...

drukenemo 5y ago
This argument of scientific consensus is what is bollocks. If there aren’t controversies among the majority of climate scientists I think this is a worrisome sign of science stuck on a loop. Scientific inquiry and disagreements are part of the scientific process which should be expected - seeing the difficulty of grasping most topics of that scale. To me it speaks more of who and what research is funded and a distorted way of doing science. That said, we’re mostly dealing with models here. I can expect this community to love graphs and models, but also to know how unstable and unreliable they can be. In other words, they often fail to communicate (with) reality. In the climate change field, we can see that by the consistent failure to predict the climate future such as rising of the oceans and other extreme heat predictions going back the 80s or 90s. There is a lot of money to be made with this perspective (heard the saying- what hurt can it be to pollute less?). Taxes and more taxes and government partnering with private players to offer solutions to this potentially fabricated problem (even if only by promoting models that agree with the story). And that is just one of the benefits that can be gained from this narrative. Power grabs and regulation is also of interest here, in my view. Then, to defend these interests, you repress and silence scientists who disagree and accuse all opposition of conspiracy. Check who created this term, by the way. Was it a private, independent smart individual or the government?