6 ms·

I've got nothing to say about what the actual cause is, but I see many lines of thought go this direction and don't think they are credible. Not everything is

I've got nothing to say about what the actual cause is, but I see many lines of thought go this direction and don't think they are credible. Not everything is a simple linear effect. There are all kinds of interactions that do not have a simple linear correlation between the amount of cause and the degree of effect. Climate and the effects on various things we care about are particularly complex and full of these sorts of interactions. There is no inherent reason to doubt global warming is a plausible cause for something just because it took place (relatively) suddenly. Is global warming the cause in this specific instance? I have no idea. But discounting the idea just because the river didn't slowly get lower over the past decade or two is not reasonable.

Biologist123 5y ago
Precisely. It’s tipping points which are our greatest threat.
- toolz 5y ago
  Wouldn't you have to define a tipping point before you could categorize the threat? This seems rather sensationalist to me. Hopefully I'm not just conflating your comment with all the other sensationalism in the constant global warming scares, but at first glance is does seem to fit in.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    > Wouldn't you have to define a tipping point before you could categorize the threat? There are quite a few tipping points that are only fully definable in hindsight. Attempting to anticipate them still has value. For example, I might see latency creeping up on my webserver over several weeks. At some point, that's likely to become a problem, but the exact date/time when I get Pingdom alerts from a downed server may not be something I can determine.
    - toolz 5y ago
      sure, but you can't categorize the threat based on some looming unknowns. You either have an idea of when you'll hit some point and the consequences or you don't - you can't just say "the unknowns are the greatest threat" because they are unknowns and by definition you don't know anything about them Are there unknowns that are likely huge threats? Maybe, maybe not. Who's to say?
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        > you can't just say "the unknowns are the greatest threat" because they are unknowns and by definition you don't know anything about them You can say "when we mess with massively, inherently chaotic systems, things tend to go in unexpected directions very rapidly", though. > Who's to say? Climatologists, who've been saying so for decades?
        toolz 5y ago
        Citation of a climatologist pointing to a known tipping point that says the tipping point is the greatest threat? I'm certainly not saying tipping points aren't a threat, but who would claim to know the greatest threat inside of climatology? I mean we have dozens of unaccounted for nuclear warheads from the cold war era and you'd have me believe there are qualified people stating they know what the greatest threat is and it's some tipping point that will set off global warming?
        ceejayoz 5y ago
        You said "Are there unknowns that are likely huge threats? Maybe, maybe not. Who's to say?", to which I replied "climatologists". I'm not sure why you want me citing something entirely different - opposite, really - that I haven't claimed.
        toolz 5y ago
        ah that's fair - I misspoke - I was intending this entire topic to be around climate sensationalism which is what my first comment was about. Of course climatologists are pointing to some very serious issues, but they also understand those to be modeled projections and potential outcomes. The most dire models are indeed alarming and of course it is their job to sound the alarm. It's everyone else's job to use their relevant experience to decide just how important those alarms are. If we've learned anything from this pandemic it should be that alarmist models can very well make every headline but still fail to predict the future.
  - pjc50 5y ago
    An example is the risk of the "clathrate gun" happening again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
    - toolz 5y ago
      >Studies published in 2000 considered this hypothetical effect to be responsible for warming events in and at the end of the Last Glacial Maximum,[6] but the distinct deuterium/hydrogen (D/H) isotope ratio indicates the methane was released by wetlands instead.[7][8] Although periods of increased atmospheric methane match periods of continental-slope failure.[3][4] I'm unaware of continental slope failure being commonly attributed to global warming.
- HamburgerEmoji 5y ago
  A lot of people seem very worried about going from 300 to 400 ppm. Did the planet encounter this alleged tipping point thing at some point in the past, like when CO2 ppm was 1000, or 2000?
Sebb767 5y ago
> Not everything is a simple linear effect. There are all kinds of interactions that do not have a simple linear correlation between the amount of cause and the degree of effect. That is true; on the other hand, you can't just say "complex interaction" and still call this a consequence of climate change when the causation is absolutely unclear beyond "less water = warm = bad". It might possibly be, yes, but the fact that 2019 had a lot of water (when climate change was arguably worse since there was no dent in emissions by lockdowns) needs some explanation. > But discounting the idea just because the river didn't slowly get lower over the past decade or two is not reasonable The grandparent explicitly asked whether climate change is the reason in this specific instance, neither I nor they doubt climate change in general (I assume). And if your observation doesn't match your thesis, simply saying "complex interaction" is not sufficient - in fact, it helps skeptics, since they can - correctly! - point out holes.
- netrus 5y ago
  > (when climate change was arguably worse since there was no dent in emissions by lockdowns) I am not an expert on any of this, but my understanding is that climate change is dependent on the TOTAL level of CO2 in the atmosphere, not the rate of adding CO2. Thus, as 2020 was obviously not net-zero, 2021 is worse than 2020 is worse than 2019. I think many people misunderstand this fundamental point, maybe because they link CO2 to air pollution, which reacts much faster (because of wind, rain, etc.).
  - zpeti 5y ago
    What many people also miss is that temperature growth doesn't trend with CO2 levels, aka exponential CO2 growth only results in linear temperature growth. Therefore we are actually in a much better situation than we think. If increase C02 levels by say 5% in the next 50 years, temperates won't rise 5%
    - Retric 5y ago
      Source? Adding or removing insulation can approximately linearly increase/decrease temperatures. The greenhouse effect is significantly more complicated, but at 0.04% it seems likely we are in a fairly linear range.

Biologist123 5y ago

Precisely. It’s tipping points which are our greatest threat.

toolz 5y ago
Wouldn't you have to define a tipping point before you could categorize the threat? This seems rather sensationalist to me. Hopefully I'm not just conflating your comment with all the other sensationalism in the constant global warming scares, but at first glance is does seem to fit in.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > Wouldn't you have to define a tipping point before you could categorize the threat? There are quite a few tipping points that are only fully definable in hindsight. Attempting to anticipate them still has value. For example, I might see latency creeping up on my webserver over several weeks. At some point, that's likely to become a problem, but the exact date/time when I get Pingdom alerts from a downed server may not be something I can determine.
  - toolz 5y ago
    sure, but you can't categorize the threat based on some looming unknowns. You either have an idea of when you'll hit some point and the consequences or you don't - you can't just say "the unknowns are the greatest threat" because they are unknowns and by definition you don't know anything about them Are there unknowns that are likely huge threats? Maybe, maybe not. Who's to say?
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      > you can't just say "the unknowns are the greatest threat" because they are unknowns and by definition you don't know anything about them You can say "when we mess with massively, inherently chaotic systems, things tend to go in unexpected directions very rapidly", though. > Who's to say? Climatologists, who've been saying so for decades?
      - toolz 5y ago
        Citation of a climatologist pointing to a known tipping point that says the tipping point is the greatest threat? I'm certainly not saying tipping points aren't a threat, but who would claim to know the greatest threat inside of climatology? I mean we have dozens of unaccounted for nuclear warheads from the cold war era and you'd have me believe there are qualified people stating they know what the greatest threat is and it's some tipping point that will set off global warming?
        ceejayoz 5y ago
        You said "Are there unknowns that are likely huge threats? Maybe, maybe not. Who's to say?", to which I replied "climatologists". I'm not sure why you want me citing something entirely different - opposite, really - that I haven't claimed.
        toolz 5y ago
        ah that's fair - I misspoke - I was intending this entire topic to be around climate sensationalism which is what my first comment was about. Of course climatologists are pointing to some very serious issues, but they also understand those to be modeled projections and potential outcomes. The most dire models are indeed alarming and of course it is their job to sound the alarm. It's everyone else's job to use their relevant experience to decide just how important those alarms are. If we've learned anything from this pandemic it should be that alarmist models can very well make every headline but still fail to predict the future.
- pjc50 5y ago
  An example is the risk of the "clathrate gun" happening again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
  - toolz 5y ago
    >Studies published in 2000 considered this hypothetical effect to be responsible for warming events in and at the end of the Last Glacial Maximum,[6] but the distinct deuterium/hydrogen (D/H) isotope ratio indicates the methane was released by wetlands instead.[7][8] Although periods of increased atmospheric methane match periods of continental-slope failure.[3][4] I'm unaware of continental slope failure being commonly attributed to global warming.
HamburgerEmoji 5y ago
A lot of people seem very worried about going from 300 to 400 ppm. Did the planet encounter this alleged tipping point thing at some point in the past, like when CO2 ppm was 1000, or 2000?

Sebb767 5y ago

> Not everything is a simple linear effect. There are all kinds of interactions that do not have a simple linear correlation between the amount of cause and the degree of effect. That is true; on the other hand, you can't just say "complex interaction" and still call this a consequence of climate change when the causation is absolutely unclear beyond "less water = warm = bad". It might possibly be, yes, but the fact that 2019 had a lot of water (when climate change was arguably worse since there was no dent in emissions by lockdowns) needs some explanation. > But discounting the idea just because the river didn't slowly get lower over the past decade or two is not reasonable The grandparent explicitly asked whether climate change is the reason in this specific instance, neither I nor they doubt climate change in general (I assume). And if your observation doesn't match your thesis, simply saying "complex interaction" is not sufficient - in fact, it helps skeptics, since they can - correctly! - point out holes.

netrus 5y ago
> (when climate change was arguably worse since there was no dent in emissions by lockdowns) I am not an expert on any of this, but my understanding is that climate change is dependent on the TOTAL level of CO2 in the atmosphere, not the rate of adding CO2. Thus, as 2020 was obviously not net-zero, 2021 is worse than 2020 is worse than 2019. I think many people misunderstand this fundamental point, maybe because they link CO2 to air pollution, which reacts much faster (because of wind, rain, etc.).
- zpeti 5y ago
  What many people also miss is that temperature growth doesn't trend with CO2 levels, aka exponential CO2 growth only results in linear temperature growth. Therefore we are actually in a much better situation than we think. If increase C02 levels by say 5% in the next 50 years, temperates won't rise 5%
  - Retric 5y ago
    Source? Adding or removing insulation can approximately linearly increase/decrease temperatures. The greenhouse effect is significantly more complicated, but at 0.04% it seems likely we are in a fairly linear range.