3 ms·
Such dangerous feedback loops are conjectured but not actually a threat. It can be proven with historical evidence like this paper, which shows that during the
by revelio 4y ago
Such dangerous feedback loops are conjectured but not actually a threat. It can be proven with historical evidence like this paper, which shows that during the Roman times it must have been much hotter than today, like somewhere between 3-7 degrees hotter, based on the discovery of bison fossils in the Alps. This is well beyond the level climatologists claim would cause runaway feedback driven global warming and mass extinction, yet that didn't happen. The historical records don't contain any reference to climate meltdowns around that time, and humanity obviously wasn't wiped out by anything.
http://www.museumgolling.at/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/9_Schaer_Wisent_published.pdf http://www.museumgolling.at/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/9_Sch...
These wisent remains from alpine caves are all from sites now in the subalpine to alpine zone. From this it can be concluded that the beech limit but also the forest line during the »wisent time« (6,000 to 1,200 years before today) was much higher and the average summer temperature had to be at least 3 to 6 °C higher than today
Oaks (Quercus) at an altitude of 1,450 metres around 2,000 years ago also indicate a climate approximately 4 to 7 °C warmer than today
There's a lot of evidence pointing in the same direction.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67281-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67281-2
This record comparison consistently shows the Roman as the warmest period of the last 2 kyr, about 2 °C warmer than average values for the late centuries for the Sicily and Western Mediterranean regions.
Yet according to scientists, "Temperature rises over 2 degrees could bring catastrophic and potentially irreversible impacts, including pushing three billion people into chronic water scarcity."
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/30/world/global-warming-critical-threshold-climate-intl/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/30/world/global-warming-crit...
- matthewdgreen 4y agoThis sounds like a bunch of irrelevant nonsense. Not sure why you would post it.
- BlueTemplar 4y agoIt's not irrelevant, but there's a lot of extra information that he is leaving out... other variables ? rate of change ?
- revelio 4y agoNot knowingly leaving out. Happy to debate such variables. What's your proposed hypothesis?
- polygamous_bat 4y agoUnfortunately, looking at this (pretty new) account's recent posts makes me think you may be arguing in good faith against a climate change troll. It's just a general pattern of Gish-galloping, and relying on the principle that disproving bullshit takes lot more effort than spewing it.
- matthewdgreen 4y agoAbsolutely. I'm just more fascinated by the idea that there are still such climate change trolls out there in 2023, and they're wasting time on HN. I thought they'd moved away from straight denial and on to bad-faith arguments against renewables.
- revelio 4y agoA response like "that looks like nonsense" isn't arguing in good faith, is it. That's not even arguing at all. It's the shallow dismissal of someone who doesn't know how to respond to unexpected evidence of incorrectness.
- revelio 4y agoYou assert a feedback loop that is reached at a certain absolute temperature level, I respond with evidence that it can't exist (otherwise it would have already triggered), and your reply is that you can't even understand the link between these two things?