4 ms·

How can one say for certain that the industrial activities of earth's occupants have any meaningful, measurable impact when we lack the complete historical pict

How can one say for certain that the industrial activities of earth's occupants have any meaningful, measurable impact when we lack the complete historical picture of the planet's cycles over the millions of years?

TaylorAlexander 4y ago
Well, the earth would be a frozen ball of ice if it weren’t for the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, and over a period of a couple hundred years scientists figured out that the balance of carbon dioxide is critical to maintaining a certain average temperature of the planet. And then they started measuring the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and they found it is rising annually in direct relation to human industrial activity. They further found that the average temperature of the earth was rising in exactly the amount we would expect when raising the carbon content of the atmosphere. Lots of scientists have looked for other explanations, and after doing tests and measurements they’ve found those factors not to be the cause. Basically, we’ve used the scientific method to examine the evidence and having done so it’s quite clear that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the cause of changes to the greenhouse effect. Here’s a great video on the history of this science which I just watched: https://youtu.be/GGtAilkWTtI https://youtu.be/GGtAilkWTtI
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  For those who are of a right-wing persuasion, this youtube channel, created by a right-wing geologist who used to work for oil companies is good, because it won't upset you by challenging any of your political beliefs, just the science related myths: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfH... The first video in the series is 14 years old.
  - TaylorAlexander 4y ago
    Oh great thanks! I always need content to share with my Dad. I will say the video I linked is happily neutral. I felt like I could share it with my Tucker-Carlson loving Dad.
    - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
      In particular the two part video here is good as a summary: A CONSERVATIVE solution to global warming (Part 1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D99qI42KGB0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D99qI42KGB0 Many of the other older ones are referring to old controversies, though I see the 14 year old one still has new comments from this year claiming it's all lies.
ako 4y ago
If we can have an impact today is not related to what happened outside our control in the past. Our impact today is physics, it can be modeled, calculated and validated. We know that you can lock yourself in a garage with a running car engine to kill yourself. Engine exhaust has a measurable impact on your health. It’s not strange to assume the effect of pollution on a global scale would be similar, with some additional effects.
- nickphx 4y ago
  I'm not sure I understand how filling a constrained space with a exhaust gas is at all similar. I'm not saying that there is no measurable impact. I am saying I doubt there's a long lasting impact beyond a few thousand years.
  - TaylorAlexander 4y ago
    If we stopped emitting carbon dioxide perhaps things would equalize in a few thousand years. But we’re still emitting carbon and the changes we’re most concerned about are those in 100 years. Those changes will lead to permanent destruction of various human constructed environments, major changes to weather patterns that devastate regions that have been farming for millennia, and the complete extinction of certain animal species. Whether or not the climate would balance out a few thousand years from now is really not the major concern of climate scientists, it’s what’s going to happen to our world a lifetime from now.
  - ako 4y ago
    The earth’s atmosphere is also a constrained space.
  - Sakos 4y ago
    > I am saying I doubt there's a long lasting impact beyond a few thousand years. Sorry, what? If we make our environment uninhabitable for us, even "temporarily", it'll take FAR less than a few thousand years to wipe out our species, or even just most of it. It'll also take at least a multiple of that time for that environment to recover, if it's even possible to recover in any way useful to us without our direct intervention. We've only been at the industrialized stage for a bit over 100 years and we're already at a point where we're facing unimaginable upheaval and suffering for hundreds of millions of people. I don't understand how you or anybody else can make arguments like this in good faith.
MayeulC 4y ago
I hope this is sarcasm, we have many indirect sources we can cross-reference to obtain a fairly accurate estimate of temperatures over tens of millions of years, if not more. Including data on atmospheric and oceanic composition, the lifeforms it harbored, and weather patterns in various parts of the world, to an extent, thanks to the fossil (and glacial, albeit on a smaller scale) record -- some of which we burn in our cars. Here's a random link in my first page of results [1]. In case you are serious, you are probably going to dismiss my claim. In that case, feel free to dismiss anything else that bothers you. Rules are for NPCs after all; and climate scientists, geologists, meteorologists, archaeologists, paleontologists and chemists are notoriously unreliable and more biased, partial and bought out than in every other field. (yes, I'm being sarcastic, sorry about that). Re-reading your question, it has merit, if it didn't come across as dismissive of the hard work that has been done by all these people over the years. Correlation does not equate causation, but the correlation is undeniable, and hypothesis that have been formulated to test for anthropogenic climate change tend to be successfully validated. Furthermore, multiple physical phenomenon at play are well understood, even if their interactions are complex (full of feedback loops, and unknowns: what will happen when the Siberian permafrost will thaw? Methane emissions? How much?). All in all, the picture looks pretty bleak, and we should not play too much with stuff we don't fully understand. [1]: https://scitechdaily.com/66-million-years-of-earths-climate-history-uncovered-puts-current-changes-in-context/ https://scitechdaily.com/66-million-years-of-earths-climate-...
rybosworld 4y ago
This question has been asked so many times, and answered in such detail, that it's exhausting to see it still raised. Especially considering, it's almost always coming from someone who has made up their mind that human driven climate change isn't real. It's not much different than asking how scientists can come to any conclusions about anything. Also, what makes you think that we need the entire historical record of the planet's climate to draw a conclusion like this?
- edgyquant 4y ago
  This question hasn’t actually been answered though. Also if your scientific explanation is questioned by half of the people then the problem is with your scientific explanation. Science is about making predictions, so save the condescension because questioning climate science is the more scientific view than accepting it by faith.
  - rybosworld 4y ago
    "This question hasn’t actually been answered though." Yes, it has been. https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-2/ https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-chan... "Also if your scientific explanation is questioned by half of the people then the problem is with your scientific explanation" I don't know if half of all people have an issue with the explanation. Regardless, that seems like a strange thing to say. Most people aren't qualified to analyze the findings of most fields of science. Your disagreement with the finding, if it does not involve an alternate, evidence-based solution, is entirely irrelevant, and has nothing to do with the scientific claim.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - Retric 4y ago
    The history of earths climate going back thousands of years is irrelevant when it comes to global warming. I don’t care about the history going back billions of years when building an actual greenhouse, just black body radiation how materials interact with different frequencies of light. Global warming is no more complicated than an actual greenhouse, it’s only understanding the exact impacts of global warming on climate that’s complicated.
Retric 4y ago
Because global CO2 levels have been rising exactly as predicted based on emissions. Really the past history of earth is irrelevant here, it’s like arguing we need to understand what the history of a forest is to understand if we can set it on fire. All that forests history is irrelevant in the face of someone with a few gallons of gas and a match.

TaylorAlexander 4y ago

Well, the earth would be a frozen ball of ice if it weren’t for the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, and over a period of a couple hundred years scientists figured out that the balance of carbon dioxide is critical to maintaining a certain average temperature of the planet. And then they started measuring the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and they found it is rising annually in direct relation to human industrial activity. They further found that the average temperature of the earth was rising in exactly the amount we would expect when raising the carbon content of the atmosphere. Lots of scientists have looked for other explanations, and after doing tests and measurements they’ve found those factors not to be the cause. Basically, we’ve used the scientific method to examine the evidence and having done so it’s quite clear that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the cause of changes to the greenhouse effect. Here’s a great video on the history of this science which I just watched: https://youtu.be/GGtAilkWTtI https://youtu.be/GGtAilkWTtI

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
For those who are of a right-wing persuasion, this youtube channel, created by a right-wing geologist who used to work for oil companies is good, because it won't upset you by challenging any of your political beliefs, just the science related myths: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfH... The first video in the series is 14 years old.
- TaylorAlexander 4y ago
  Oh great thanks! I always need content to share with my Dad. I will say the video I linked is happily neutral. I felt like I could share it with my Tucker-Carlson loving Dad.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    In particular the two part video here is good as a summary: A CONSERVATIVE solution to global warming (Part 1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D99qI42KGB0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D99qI42KGB0 Many of the other older ones are referring to old controversies, though I see the 14 year old one still has new comments from this year claiming it's all lies.

ako 4y ago

If we can have an impact today is not related to what happened outside our control in the past. Our impact today is physics, it can be modeled, calculated and validated. We know that you can lock yourself in a garage with a running car engine to kill yourself. Engine exhaust has a measurable impact on your health. It’s not strange to assume the effect of pollution on a global scale would be similar, with some additional effects.

nickphx 4y ago
I'm not sure I understand how filling a constrained space with a exhaust gas is at all similar. I'm not saying that there is no measurable impact. I am saying I doubt there's a long lasting impact beyond a few thousand years.
- TaylorAlexander 4y ago
  If we stopped emitting carbon dioxide perhaps things would equalize in a few thousand years. But we’re still emitting carbon and the changes we’re most concerned about are those in 100 years. Those changes will lead to permanent destruction of various human constructed environments, major changes to weather patterns that devastate regions that have been farming for millennia, and the complete extinction of certain animal species. Whether or not the climate would balance out a few thousand years from now is really not the major concern of climate scientists, it’s what’s going to happen to our world a lifetime from now.
- ako 4y ago
  The earth’s atmosphere is also a constrained space.
- Sakos 4y ago
  > I am saying I doubt there's a long lasting impact beyond a few thousand years. Sorry, what? If we make our environment uninhabitable for us, even "temporarily", it'll take FAR less than a few thousand years to wipe out our species, or even just most of it. It'll also take at least a multiple of that time for that environment to recover, if it's even possible to recover in any way useful to us without our direct intervention. We've only been at the industrialized stage for a bit over 100 years and we're already at a point where we're facing unimaginable upheaval and suffering for hundreds of millions of people. I don't understand how you or anybody else can make arguments like this in good faith.

MayeulC 4y ago

I hope this is sarcasm, we have many indirect sources we can cross-reference to obtain a fairly accurate estimate of temperatures over tens of millions of years, if not more. Including data on atmospheric and oceanic composition, the lifeforms it harbored, and weather patterns in various parts of the world, to an extent, thanks to the fossil (and glacial, albeit on a smaller scale) record -- some of which we burn in our cars. Here's a random link in my first page of results [1]. In case you are serious, you are probably going to dismiss my claim. In that case, feel free to dismiss anything else that bothers you. Rules are for NPCs after all; and climate scientists, geologists, meteorologists, archaeologists, paleontologists and chemists are notoriously unreliable and more biased, partial and bought out than in every other field. (yes, I'm being sarcastic, sorry about that). Re-reading your question, it has merit, if it didn't come across as dismissive of the hard work that has been done by all these people over the years. Correlation does not equate causation, but the correlation is undeniable, and hypothesis that have been formulated to test for anthropogenic climate change tend to be successfully validated. Furthermore, multiple physical phenomenon at play are well understood, even if their interactions are complex (full of feedback loops, and unknowns: what will happen when the Siberian permafrost will thaw? Methane emissions? How much?). All in all, the picture looks pretty bleak, and we should not play too much with stuff we don't fully understand. [1]: https://scitechdaily.com/66-million-years-of-earths-climate-history-uncovered-puts-current-changes-in-context/ https://scitechdaily.com/66-million-years-of-earths-climate-...

rybosworld 4y ago

This question has been asked so many times, and answered in such detail, that it's exhausting to see it still raised. Especially considering, it's almost always coming from someone who has made up their mind that human driven climate change isn't real. It's not much different than asking how scientists can come to any conclusions about anything. Also, what makes you think that we need the entire historical record of the planet's climate to draw a conclusion like this?

edgyquant 4y ago
This question hasn’t actually been answered though. Also if your scientific explanation is questioned by half of the people then the problem is with your scientific explanation. Science is about making predictions, so save the condescension because questioning climate science is the more scientific view than accepting it by faith.
- rybosworld 4y ago
  "This question hasn’t actually been answered though." Yes, it has been. https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-2/ https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-chan... "Also if your scientific explanation is questioned by half of the people then the problem is with your scientific explanation" I don't know if half of all people have an issue with the explanation. Regardless, that seems like a strange thing to say. Most people aren't qualified to analyze the findings of most fields of science. Your disagreement with the finding, if it does not involve an alternate, evidence-based solution, is entirely irrelevant, and has nothing to do with the scientific claim.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- Retric 4y ago
  The history of earths climate going back thousands of years is irrelevant when it comes to global warming. I don’t care about the history going back billions of years when building an actual greenhouse, just black body radiation how materials interact with different frequencies of light. Global warming is no more complicated than an actual greenhouse, it’s only understanding the exact impacts of global warming on climate that’s complicated.

Retric 4y ago

Because global CO2 levels have been rising exactly as predicted based on emissions. Really the past history of earth is irrelevant here, it’s like arguing we need to understand what the history of a forest is to understand if we can set it on fire. All that forests history is irrelevant in the face of someone with a few gallons of gas and a match.