3 ms·

> the term 'global warming' has been swapped for the latter since the average global temperature has gone down for a number of years after an earlier steady ri

by XorNot 4y ago

> the term 'global warming' has been swapped for the latter since the average global temperature has gone down for a number of years after an earlier steady rise You're just going to throw that out there? You'll cite the Fischer-Tropsch process, but not "actually global temperatures are declining"? Here[1]. The temperature hasn't gone down. The narrative hasn't changed from global warming because of this (the term was in fact dropped because people are idiots and trying to explain what global temperature is measuring in terms of energy dynamics in the climate system doesn't work...). 2022 was the 6th warmest year on record, and based on all data the overall trend is up. [1] https://www.noaa.gov/news/2022-was-worlds-6th-warmest-year-on-record https://www.noaa.gov/news/2022-was-worlds-6th-warmest-year-o...

the_third_wave 4y ago
You are pointing at a single year, I am pointing at a trend [1,2]. The trend had been for the average global temperature to rise up to 2012 to 2016 - depending on which measurements you look at. After that period the average global temperature has declined by 0.06°C per year up to 2022. This change in the trend made the "global warming" moniker easily attacked "because the temperature are clearly going down". This is why "climate change" became the more common term [3]. May I suggest a less belligerent/dogmatic attitude when discussing this subject? If the narrative holds it won't change the conclusion. If new data shows the narrative to be false or misleading - e.g. ice core records show the atmospheric CO₂ concentration to lag behind temperature changes, not lead them, climate sensitivity wrt. CO₂ concentration is low, feedback mechanisms are unclear, there are far too many fudge factors in the climate models to make them reliable sources - it will be much easier to adapt to the new situation. We're not talking religious dogma after all but scientific theory, that which can and should be discussed lest it turns into the former. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2018/04/26/global-temperatures-have-cooled-since-2016-heres-why-thats-normal/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/... [2] https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth%E2%80%99s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-ear... [3] https://climate.nasa.gov/global-warming-vs-climate-change/ https://climate.nasa.gov/global-warming-vs-climate-change/
- XorNot 4y ago
  Wow didn't even wait before busting out "what if CO2 doesn't cause global warming" and very obviously didn't read your own links. Running the denialist playbook as usual: slip in a insinuation that the issue has stopped without evidence, then drop a bunch of articles which don't support it while continuing to say "what if all the data supported me?" And then started alluding to a conspiracy with language choices like "dogma". Throw in some upfront tone policing because heaven forbid you have to defend your position vigorously and the recipe is complete. Go on: hit me with "climate cycles are natural" and then lean into how the media just don't talk about the controversy.
  - the_third_wave 4y ago
    Climate cycles are natural [1]. Please refrain from using terms like denialist, it does nothing to help the discourse. Also, that 'bunch of articles' I sent does support what I said, this being a break in the rising temperature trend. You seem to want to hear much more in what was said, why is that? As to the 'conspiracy with language choices' I think you realise that this is no conspiracy but a simple fact - what used to be called 'global warming' is now called 'climate change'. As to 'tone policing' I'd suggest reading your posts I replied to. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene#/media/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene#/media/File:Holocene_...
    - jjoonathan 4y ago
      > denialist, it does nothing to help the discourse When one party wins by default, they benefit from stalemate-seeking tactics. "Just Asking Questions" unfortunately works very well for this purpose. Dogma poisons the discourse, yes, but so does accidentally extending good faith to a bottomless well of bad faith questions, which has been the conservative playbook on climate change since forever. The counter-strategy is dogma. In order to have a scientific discussion rather than a political discussion, we need to know your intentions, and that's extremely difficult on a pseudoanonymous internet forum. It sucks, but this is probably how it has to be.

by XorNot 4y ago

the_third_wave 4y ago

You are pointing at a single year, I am pointing at a trend [1,2]. The trend had been for the average global temperature to rise up to 2012 to 2016 - depending on which measurements you look at. After that period the average global temperature has declined by 0.06°C per year up to 2022. This change in the trend made the "global warming" moniker easily attacked "because the temperature are clearly going down". This is why "climate change" became the more common term [3]. May I suggest a less belligerent/dogmatic attitude when discussing this subject? If the narrative holds it won't change the conclusion. If new data shows the narrative to be false or misleading - e.g. ice core records show the atmospheric CO₂ concentration to lag behind temperature changes, not lead them, climate sensitivity wrt. CO₂ concentration is low, feedback mechanisms are unclear, there are far too many fudge factors in the climate models to make them reliable sources - it will be much easier to adapt to the new situation. We're not talking religious dogma after all but scientific theory, that which can and should be discussed lest it turns into the former. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2018/04/26/global-temperatures-have-cooled-since-2016-heres-why-thats-normal/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/... [2] https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth%E2%80%99s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-ear... [3] https://climate.nasa.gov/global-warming-vs-climate-change/ https://climate.nasa.gov/global-warming-vs-climate-change/

XorNot 4y ago
Wow didn't even wait before busting out "what if CO2 doesn't cause global warming" and very obviously didn't read your own links. Running the denialist playbook as usual: slip in a insinuation that the issue has stopped without evidence, then drop a bunch of articles which don't support it while continuing to say "what if all the data supported me?" And then started alluding to a conspiracy with language choices like "dogma". Throw in some upfront tone policing because heaven forbid you have to defend your position vigorously and the recipe is complete. Go on: hit me with "climate cycles are natural" and then lean into how the media just don't talk about the controversy.
- the_third_wave 4y ago
  Climate cycles are natural [1]. Please refrain from using terms like denialist, it does nothing to help the discourse. Also, that 'bunch of articles' I sent does support what I said, this being a break in the rising temperature trend. You seem to want to hear much more in what was said, why is that? As to the 'conspiracy with language choices' I think you realise that this is no conspiracy but a simple fact - what used to be called 'global warming' is now called 'climate change'. As to 'tone policing' I'd suggest reading your posts I replied to. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene#/media/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene#/media/File:Holocene_...
  - jjoonathan 4y ago
    > denialist, it does nothing to help the discourse When one party wins by default, they benefit from stalemate-seeking tactics. "Just Asking Questions" unfortunately works very well for this purpose. Dogma poisons the discourse, yes, but so does accidentally extending good faith to a bottomless well of bad faith questions, which has been the conservative playbook on climate change since forever. The counter-strategy is dogma. In order to have a scientific discussion rather than a political discussion, we need to know your intentions, and that's extremely difficult on a pseudoanonymous internet forum. It sucks, but this is probably how it has to be.