6 ms·

> global warming Calling it that can be a trap. Stick to climate change.

by markdown 5y ago

thehappypm 5y ago
No, we need to stick with global warming. Overwhelmingly the direction is warming.
- wyre 5y ago
  I’ll stick with ‘impending climate disaster’ as winters are getting colder and more intense and infrastructure is more likely to fail in cold than heat.
  - BoHerfIIIJrEsq 5y ago
    What does impending mean to you?
- wrycoder 5y ago
  Except that the actual global atmospheric warming is minimal, 0.14 C/decade. [0] The actual problem is climate change in the western part of the United States, coupled with higher population density, poor forest management, and poor power line maintenance. [0] https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/ https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-...
  - amluto 5y ago
    The California problems may well be more due to forest mismanagement and PG&E issues than global warming. But 0.14C/decade is not “minimal” in any useful sense — it’s severely problematic.
    - wrycoder 5y ago
      That’s 1.5 C per century. Where I sit, there was ice a mile thick 15,000 years ago. We are still coming out of the last ice age. Besides that, we have just come out of the so-called Little Ice Age, at the height of which people walked from Manhattan to Staten Island on the ice in New York Harbor. 1.5 C per century is inconsequential. Not only that, but I predict that humans will stop emitting CO2 in a few decades, in any case.
      - cartoonworld 5y ago
        You are mentioning these geological time scales such as 15,000 years ago, but those figures representing delta are derived from a 42 year period. What is the delta if you account for the temperatures relating to any significant change in human consumption as opposed to this period which is the only one that coincides with fuel efficiency standards and increased environmental enforcement? Selecting a very small time period that does not include the industrial revolution, large scale construction (New deal public works, highways) operations, world wars, nuclear energy, adoption of mechanized logistics & transportation, any time at all with unrestricted emissions, etc is nearly useless for analysis. Why should the delta during 1979-2021 be representative of the overall climatology when the dataset appears to be barely large enough to even begin making any analysis?
        wrycoder 5y ago
        That is the length of the satellite record.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > Where I sit, there was ice a mile thick 15,000 years ago. Besides that, we have just come out of the so-called Little Ice Age, at the height of which people walked from Manhattan to Staten Island on the ice in New York Harbor. At the last glacial maximum, global temperature was about 7°C cooler than today; the “Little Ice Age” wasn't a particular period of global cooling, but a set of unsynchronized localized phenomenon featuring typical less than 1°C of large-area cooling. > 1.5 C per century is inconsequential. 1.5°C/century of global change is gigantic compared to either of the phenomena you raise to try to minimize it. > Not only that, but I predict that humans will stop emitting CO2 in a few decades, in any case. Based on...what?
  - jjulius 5y ago
    It's worth pointing out that the source here - Dr. Roy Spencer - has some incredibly controversial views in this area. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_%28scientist%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_%28scientist%29
    - wrycoder 5y ago
      That is certainly true! Doesn’t mean he’s wrong, though.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - thehappypm 5y ago
    I looked this up, thinking, there's no way that .15 C / decade is plausible, you're a wackjob. But there it is: https://www.co2.earth/global-warming-update https://www.co2.earth/global-warming-update Global warming has only increased the Earth's temperature by 1 degree Celsius? That doesn't seem like a lot.
    - wrycoder 5y ago
      Look at the satellite temperate record I showed. It is the only believable record at this point, because of terrestrial temperature manipulation by people like Hansen. The linear trend is 0.14 degrees per decade over the last 40 years. Read Spencer’s book for an alternate point of view. Global warming is real, but it is not catastrophic.
- mym1990 5y ago
  It’s good to keep in mind that heat won’t be the only fallout of global warming though, it will be more extremes of everything
w-j-w 5y ago
People crying out "bUt iT wAs cOlD yEsTeRdAy" to global warming hardly counts as a trap. The way that the climate is changing is that it is getting warmer.
xwdv 5y ago
The winters are not getting any colder.
Johnny555 5y ago
It doesn't matter what you call it, people won't change their feeling about it whether you call it Global Warming or Climate Change - it's kind of like the people who said they were waiting for FDA approval before they'd take the vaccine. Now that it's been approved, many are still saying "Well, it was rushed, I still want to wait", or "it was a political approval, not based on science".

> global warming Calling it that can be a trap. Stick to climate change.

thehappypm 5y ago

No, we need to stick with global warming. Overwhelmingly the direction is warming.

wyre 5y ago
I’ll stick with ‘impending climate disaster’ as winters are getting colder and more intense and infrastructure is more likely to fail in cold than heat.
- BoHerfIIIJrEsq 5y ago
  What does impending mean to you?
wrycoder 5y ago
Except that the actual global atmospheric warming is minimal, 0.14 C/decade. [0] The actual problem is climate change in the western part of the United States, coupled with higher population density, poor forest management, and poor power line maintenance. [0] https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/ https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-...
- amluto 5y ago
  The California problems may well be more due to forest mismanagement and PG&E issues than global warming. But 0.14C/decade is not “minimal” in any useful sense — it’s severely problematic.
  - wrycoder 5y ago
    That’s 1.5 C per century. Where I sit, there was ice a mile thick 15,000 years ago. We are still coming out of the last ice age. Besides that, we have just come out of the so-called Little Ice Age, at the height of which people walked from Manhattan to Staten Island on the ice in New York Harbor. 1.5 C per century is inconsequential. Not only that, but I predict that humans will stop emitting CO2 in a few decades, in any case.
    - cartoonworld 5y ago
      You are mentioning these geological time scales such as 15,000 years ago, but those figures representing delta are derived from a 42 year period. What is the delta if you account for the temperatures relating to any significant change in human consumption as opposed to this period which is the only one that coincides with fuel efficiency standards and increased environmental enforcement? Selecting a very small time period that does not include the industrial revolution, large scale construction (New deal public works, highways) operations, world wars, nuclear energy, adoption of mechanized logistics & transportation, any time at all with unrestricted emissions, etc is nearly useless for analysis. Why should the delta during 1979-2021 be representative of the overall climatology when the dataset appears to be barely large enough to even begin making any analysis?
      - wrycoder 5y ago
        That is the length of the satellite record.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Where I sit, there was ice a mile thick 15,000 years ago. Besides that, we have just come out of the so-called Little Ice Age, at the height of which people walked from Manhattan to Staten Island on the ice in New York Harbor. At the last glacial maximum, global temperature was about 7°C cooler than today; the “Little Ice Age” wasn't a particular period of global cooling, but a set of unsynchronized localized phenomenon featuring typical less than 1°C of large-area cooling. > 1.5 C per century is inconsequential. 1.5°C/century of global change is gigantic compared to either of the phenomena you raise to try to minimize it. > Not only that, but I predict that humans will stop emitting CO2 in a few decades, in any case. Based on...what?
- jjulius 5y ago
  It's worth pointing out that the source here - Dr. Roy Spencer - has some incredibly controversial views in this area. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_%28scientist%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_%28scientist%29
  - wrycoder 5y ago
    That is certainly true! Doesn’t mean he’s wrong, though.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- thehappypm 5y ago
  I looked this up, thinking, there's no way that .15 C / decade is plausible, you're a wackjob. But there it is: https://www.co2.earth/global-warming-update https://www.co2.earth/global-warming-update Global warming has only increased the Earth's temperature by 1 degree Celsius? That doesn't seem like a lot.
  - wrycoder 5y ago
    Look at the satellite temperate record I showed. It is the only believable record at this point, because of terrestrial temperature manipulation by people like Hansen. The linear trend is 0.14 degrees per decade over the last 40 years. Read Spencer’s book for an alternate point of view. Global warming is real, but it is not catastrophic.
mym1990 5y ago
It’s good to keep in mind that heat won’t be the only fallout of global warming though, it will be more extremes of everything

w-j-w 5y ago

People crying out "bUt iT wAs cOlD yEsTeRdAy" to global warming hardly counts as a trap. The way that the climate is changing is that it is getting warmer.

xwdv 5y ago

The winters are not getting any colder.

Johnny555 5y ago

It doesn't matter what you call it, people won't change their feeling about it whether you call it Global Warming or Climate Change - it's kind of like the people who said they were waiting for FDA approval before they'd take the vaccine. Now that it's been approved, many are still saying "Well, it was rushed, I still want to wait", or "it was a political approval, not based on science".