3 ms·

One of the World’s Coldest Places Is Now the Warmest It’s Been in 1k Years

8 points by indigodaddy 4y ago

melling 4y ago
I was surprised to hear Bill Gates say it’s already too late to restrict the temperature increase to 1.5 C https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/01/13/bill-gates-we-will-overshoot-1point5-degrees-of-global-warming.html https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/01/13/bill-gates-we-will-overs...
- newaccount2021 4y ago
  [dead]
- thinking4real 4y ago
  Can you please give me some sort of published papers or something empirical to demonstrate that we have any control over this to a magnitude that matters? As far as i’ve ever seen, we have no mechanism to cool the planet currently. Where does the idea that we have control come from? What’s the science?
  - melling 4y ago
    We aren’t trying to cool the planet, we are trying to prevent it from warming by not increasing greenhouse gases. This has been discussed for about 5 decades. After 50 years, I’m not sure why we aren’t discussing the same issue.
    - thinking4real 4y ago
      That’s about what i’ve come to expect from this climate stuff - chest puffing, with no hard science to back it up I was asking for a source, not yet another vague rambling
    - aquarium87 4y ago
      It's simple. All predictions and models have failed to date. They have 1000+ climate models, and every couple years take and promote the best performing ones to give the illusion of credibility. In reality, past performance is not an indicator of future performance. A more simplistic gold standard approach says just look at sea level rise, and it's relatively flat at about 3mm per year, or a foot per century. The entire climate industry relies on unproven, highly speculative feedback loops that unsuccessfully attempt to model the effects of moisture in the air.
      - melling 4y ago
        NOPE, THAT WOULD BE WRONG! In fact, even Exxon had good models 50 years ago https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/01/12/business/exxon-climate-models-global-warming/index.html https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/01/12/business/exxon-climate-mo... Remember, when people like yourself couldn’t imagine how 1 million Americans could die from coronavirus? “more people died from blah blah blah, than coronavirus “ That went on for about a year, then the message turned to be “there’s nothing we could’ve done “
        thinking4real 4y ago
        Ngl, for someone who’s gloating so much - you sent some crummy cnn article which didn’t show any theory or model, much less one being correct
Blackstrat 4y ago
The headline says it all. Warmest in a thousand years. There were far fewer humans, no internal combustion engines, etc. So what was the catalyst for the previous warming? Climate change is a political movement rooted in communism. I’m sure I’ll be downvoted but I’ve been hearing this for 50+ years.
- adammarples 4y ago
  It is thought that the medieval warm period was caused by an increase in solar radiation and a decrease in volcanic activity. It is thought that the current warm period is caused by anthropogenic carbon emissions.
  - Blackstrat 4y ago
    And we no longer have solar radiation variability?
  - aquarium87 4y ago
    You are forgiven for thinking that scientist believe humans caused this warming. They both do and don't. 97% of scientists DO believe that humans have at least SOME impact. 3% believe humans have Zero impact. But that doesn't say anything, anything at all. It's a propaganda piece. 97% of scientists COULD believe that warming is 99% natural, and that stat would be technically correct. It simply doesnt have any meaning. The question that is rarely asked or claimed is what percentage is natural and what percentage is anthropogenic?
- satiric 4y ago
  The headline doesn't necessarily mean that it was warmer 1000 years ago. We might just not have accurate data past 1000 years. In addition, climate change doesn't mean that all temperature measurements are consistently higher all the time. It just means the average global temperature has increased. So measurements at a specific site don't mean much (yes, that means that this article doesn't mean much either. You need an average of many sites across the world to come to a realistic conclusion). It's also worth considering how fast the temperature is changing. The average global temperature has been hotter than it is now, but it rose and fell at a far slower rate than it does now.

8 points by indigodaddy 4y ago

I was surprised to hear Bill Gates say it’s already too late to restrict the temperature increase to 1.5 C https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/01/13/bill-gates-we-will-overshoot-1point5-degrees-of-global-warming.html https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/01/13/bill-gates-we-will-overs...

newaccount2021 4y ago
[dead]
thinking4real 4y ago
Can you please give me some sort of published papers or something empirical to demonstrate that we have any control over this to a magnitude that matters? As far as i’ve ever seen, we have no mechanism to cool the planet currently. Where does the idea that we have control come from? What’s the science?
- melling 4y ago
  We aren’t trying to cool the planet, we are trying to prevent it from warming by not increasing greenhouse gases. This has been discussed for about 5 decades. After 50 years, I’m not sure why we aren’t discussing the same issue.
  - thinking4real 4y ago
    That’s about what i’ve come to expect from this climate stuff - chest puffing, with no hard science to back it up I was asking for a source, not yet another vague rambling
  - aquarium87 4y ago
    It's simple. All predictions and models have failed to date. They have 1000+ climate models, and every couple years take and promote the best performing ones to give the illusion of credibility. In reality, past performance is not an indicator of future performance. A more simplistic gold standard approach says just look at sea level rise, and it's relatively flat at about 3mm per year, or a foot per century. The entire climate industry relies on unproven, highly speculative feedback loops that unsuccessfully attempt to model the effects of moisture in the air.
    - melling 4y ago
      NOPE, THAT WOULD BE WRONG! In fact, even Exxon had good models 50 years ago https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/01/12/business/exxon-climate-models-global-warming/index.html https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/01/12/business/exxon-climate-mo... Remember, when people like yourself couldn’t imagine how 1 million Americans could die from coronavirus? “more people died from blah blah blah, than coronavirus “ That went on for about a year, then the message turned to be “there’s nothing we could’ve done “
      - thinking4real 4y ago
        Ngl, for someone who’s gloating so much - you sent some crummy cnn article which didn’t show any theory or model, much less one being correct

Blackstrat 4y ago

The headline says it all. Warmest in a thousand years. There were far fewer humans, no internal combustion engines, etc. So what was the catalyst for the previous warming? Climate change is a political movement rooted in communism. I’m sure I’ll be downvoted but I’ve been hearing this for 50+ years.

adammarples 4y ago
It is thought that the medieval warm period was caused by an increase in solar radiation and a decrease in volcanic activity. It is thought that the current warm period is caused by anthropogenic carbon emissions.
- Blackstrat 4y ago
  And we no longer have solar radiation variability?
- aquarium87 4y ago
  You are forgiven for thinking that scientist believe humans caused this warming. They both do and don't. 97% of scientists DO believe that humans have at least SOME impact. 3% believe humans have Zero impact. But that doesn't say anything, anything at all. It's a propaganda piece. 97% of scientists COULD believe that warming is 99% natural, and that stat would be technically correct. It simply doesnt have any meaning. The question that is rarely asked or claimed is what percentage is natural and what percentage is anthropogenic?
satiric 4y ago
The headline doesn't necessarily mean that it was warmer 1000 years ago. We might just not have accurate data past 1000 years. In addition, climate change doesn't mean that all temperature measurements are consistently higher all the time. It just means the average global temperature has increased. So measurements at a specific site don't mean much (yes, that means that this article doesn't mean much either. You need an average of many sites across the world to come to a realistic conclusion). It's also worth considering how fast the temperature is changing. The average global temperature has been hotter than it is now, but it rose and fell at a far slower rate than it does now.