4 ms·

Changes are static or not depending on the scale of time you consider. In a time span of billions (even millions) of years, our planet indeed went through diff

by pil0u 3y ago

Changes are static or not depending on the scale of time you consider. In a time span of billions (even millions) of years, our planet indeed went through different eras. For a duration of one human life, the state of nature is expected to remain quite static. The problem with climate change is that we started to witness the planet entering in a new era in such a small time frame - roughly 200 years.

nunobrito 3y ago
[flagged]
- tommywg7 3y ago
  What a weird comment. The ozone hole WAS a huge problem… and then the world banned CFCs and we fixed it. But it took years of lawsuits, journalism, and scientists speaking up. Similarly, global warming is a huge problem today and threatens our future. We will fix it just like we did the ozone hole, but again it will take decades of lawsuits, science, public outcry. The problem this time is twofold: the rise of conspiracy theorists in the Republican Party, who refuse to even acknowledge the problem, and the stranglehold that globalist neoliberal corporations have on the economy. The second being what you meant in your last paragraph. It’s hard to actually address waste, overconsumption, and pollution when our economy and government is controlled by a handful of corps, who are getting better and better at greenwashing.
  - carlmr 3y ago
    >The problem this time is twofold: the rise of conspiracy theorists in the Republican Party, who refuse to even acknowledge the problem, and the stranglehold that globalist neoliberal corporations have on the economy. Well this time it's a lot worse because not using CFCs had a comparatively small impact on the world economy, with a big payoff. There is currently no realistic path to keep somewhat decent living standards for the number of people we have, while ramping down the world economy sufficiently to battle global warming. Even if everybody turned vegan and stopped flying it wouldn't be enough.
    - nunobrito 3y ago
      Wood was once used to power engines, then coal, then oil and in current days electricity. The sooner you move to the next stage of evolution, the more efficient you can become and better afford to preserve natural resources. What most people forget is that pollution comes from the basic need of survival and improving life quality. So you need efficiency and balance what matters for most humans. Instead of forcing everyone to become vegan and to stop flying, how about supporting the industries that create artificial meat cheaper than the real thing and airplanes that run on electricity? (both of these things already exist nowadays)
      - carlmr 3y ago
        >Instead of forcing everyone to become vegan and to stop flying, how about supporting the industries that create artificial meat cheaper than the real thing and airplanes that run on electricity? I was saying everybody turning vegan and stopping flying entirely wouldn't be enough. Flying on electricity and lab grown meat still use a lot of energy compared to not having those. You're actually making my point really well. Extreme measures aren't enough, so why not do less than that? Nobody wants to give up their quality of life. Especially not sufficiently to stop climate change.
        nunobrito 3y ago
        Now I'm confused. Are you actually advocating for the world to stop eating meat or is that one of those things people call sarcasm? Don't see a problem in using more energy. There is already nuclear power since decades, just use it.
- morsch 3y ago
  I doubt there is much of a discussion to be had here, but at least you could try to get easily verifiable dates right. Global cooling: 1970s https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling Ozone layer depletion: succesfully mitigated starting in the 1980s https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_the_Ozone_Layer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_for_the_Pr... Anthropogenic global warming: scientific consensus since around 1990 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_First_Assessment_Report https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_First_Assessment_Report For reference, it's the year 2023 now.
  - nunobrito 3y ago
    Don't really care. Basically the same old tricks with new faces. Even worse when you try to use the word "consensus" when it was everything except that. End result for europeans is paying more taxes while other places keep doing far worse. I'll be damned to yet see any of those groups advocating for more nuclear power around here to save the environment. Sure this isn't binary and plenty has improved in regards to ecology when you want to nitpick on reddit-style, what truly bothers me is the sheer percentage of green washing instead of focus on real improvement.
- importantbrian 3y ago
  It's bizarre to me that climate skeptics think the ozone issue is a point in their favor. Ozone depletion was a real issue, but the international community came together and banned the use of CFCs. Since then ozone levels stabilized and then started to recover. They should reach pre-1980s levels this century based on current trends. It is a clear example of collective action successfully addressing a climate problem.
  - nunobrito 3y ago
    It was as much of a real issue as corona recently. Both got solved with the same approach. If you went ahead getting untested vaccines into your body then for sure you also tolerate more taxes in name of "climate change". Albeit we live on the same planet it does seem we live in two different worlds and look at the same things in opposite manner. I don't care what "science" has to say or whatever happy reality you live where "collective action" happens.
kjs3 3y ago
I often use https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/ when someone says "well, temperature has always varied...this is just part of a natural cycle".
- midoridensha 3y ago
  This isn't the greatest illustration: it only goes back 20,000 years. That's only a minuscule portion of the Earth's history, and even for humans it's just a fraction of our history (humans are roughly 2M years old). Of course, going back to the climate the Earth had in the Cambrian era, for instance, probably would not be comfortable to humans at all, but still, humans have survived for a much longer time than is illustrated here. Human civilization, OTOH, occupies about half the time period shown here. The thing that's most important about climate change is: how will it affect human settlements where they're located now? You can't just pick up whole cities with billions of people and move them, and many (most?) of the cities are close to water.
  - kjs3 3y ago
    Way to wait a week to sneak this in. Anti-science thrives when it avoids scrutiny. If you think going back more than 20k years would in any way change the entire point of the cartoon[1], then by all means do the research, draw the graph and show where it's wrong. [1] hint: rate of change is important.
    - midoridensha 3y ago
      I waited a week because posting it sooner gets me "You're posting too fast. Slow down". So some of my replies are quick, others get queued up for days. Fix the site, don't complain to me. Anyway, it's not anti-science. It's well-known that the earth was hotter during the time of the dinosaurs. Sure, rate of change is important, but as I said in the end, the biggest problem for humans is rising sea levels, because of where humans live. Worse storms are also a big problem, though here again where humans live is a big problem since they tend to live on coasts and storms usually hit there.
akvadrako 3y ago
This isn't true. For most of history we just don't have the resolution to see changes over a few hundred years. But we do have recent examples of much quicker temperature changes. During the Younger Dryas the global average temp dropped about 5°C over a few decades and about 1000 years later, rose again just as quickly.

by pil0u 3y ago

nunobrito 3y ago

[flagged]

tommywg7 3y ago
What a weird comment. The ozone hole WAS a huge problem… and then the world banned CFCs and we fixed it. But it took years of lawsuits, journalism, and scientists speaking up. Similarly, global warming is a huge problem today and threatens our future. We will fix it just like we did the ozone hole, but again it will take decades of lawsuits, science, public outcry. The problem this time is twofold: the rise of conspiracy theorists in the Republican Party, who refuse to even acknowledge the problem, and the stranglehold that globalist neoliberal corporations have on the economy. The second being what you meant in your last paragraph. It’s hard to actually address waste, overconsumption, and pollution when our economy and government is controlled by a handful of corps, who are getting better and better at greenwashing.
- carlmr 3y ago
  >The problem this time is twofold: the rise of conspiracy theorists in the Republican Party, who refuse to even acknowledge the problem, and the stranglehold that globalist neoliberal corporations have on the economy. Well this time it's a lot worse because not using CFCs had a comparatively small impact on the world economy, with a big payoff. There is currently no realistic path to keep somewhat decent living standards for the number of people we have, while ramping down the world economy sufficiently to battle global warming. Even if everybody turned vegan and stopped flying it wouldn't be enough.
  - nunobrito 3y ago
    Wood was once used to power engines, then coal, then oil and in current days electricity. The sooner you move to the next stage of evolution, the more efficient you can become and better afford to preserve natural resources. What most people forget is that pollution comes from the basic need of survival and improving life quality. So you need efficiency and balance what matters for most humans. Instead of forcing everyone to become vegan and to stop flying, how about supporting the industries that create artificial meat cheaper than the real thing and airplanes that run on electricity? (both of these things already exist nowadays)
    - carlmr 3y ago
      >Instead of forcing everyone to become vegan and to stop flying, how about supporting the industries that create artificial meat cheaper than the real thing and airplanes that run on electricity? I was saying everybody turning vegan and stopping flying entirely wouldn't be enough. Flying on electricity and lab grown meat still use a lot of energy compared to not having those. You're actually making my point really well. Extreme measures aren't enough, so why not do less than that? Nobody wants to give up their quality of life. Especially not sufficiently to stop climate change.
      - nunobrito 3y ago
        Now I'm confused. Are you actually advocating for the world to stop eating meat or is that one of those things people call sarcasm? Don't see a problem in using more energy. There is already nuclear power since decades, just use it.
morsch 3y ago
I doubt there is much of a discussion to be had here, but at least you could try to get easily verifiable dates right. Global cooling: 1970s https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling Ozone layer depletion: succesfully mitigated starting in the 1980s https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_the_Ozone_Layer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_for_the_Pr... Anthropogenic global warming: scientific consensus since around 1990 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_First_Assessment_Report https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_First_Assessment_Report For reference, it's the year 2023 now.
- nunobrito 3y ago
  Don't really care. Basically the same old tricks with new faces. Even worse when you try to use the word "consensus" when it was everything except that. End result for europeans is paying more taxes while other places keep doing far worse. I'll be damned to yet see any of those groups advocating for more nuclear power around here to save the environment. Sure this isn't binary and plenty has improved in regards to ecology when you want to nitpick on reddit-style, what truly bothers me is the sheer percentage of green washing instead of focus on real improvement.
importantbrian 3y ago
It's bizarre to me that climate skeptics think the ozone issue is a point in their favor. Ozone depletion was a real issue, but the international community came together and banned the use of CFCs. Since then ozone levels stabilized and then started to recover. They should reach pre-1980s levels this century based on current trends. It is a clear example of collective action successfully addressing a climate problem.
- nunobrito 3y ago
  It was as much of a real issue as corona recently. Both got solved with the same approach. If you went ahead getting untested vaccines into your body then for sure you also tolerate more taxes in name of "climate change". Albeit we live on the same planet it does seem we live in two different worlds and look at the same things in opposite manner. I don't care what "science" has to say or whatever happy reality you live where "collective action" happens.

kjs3 3y ago

I often use https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/ when someone says "well, temperature has always varied...this is just part of a natural cycle".

midoridensha 3y ago
This isn't the greatest illustration: it only goes back 20,000 years. That's only a minuscule portion of the Earth's history, and even for humans it's just a fraction of our history (humans are roughly 2M years old). Of course, going back to the climate the Earth had in the Cambrian era, for instance, probably would not be comfortable to humans at all, but still, humans have survived for a much longer time than is illustrated here. Human civilization, OTOH, occupies about half the time period shown here. The thing that's most important about climate change is: how will it affect human settlements where they're located now? You can't just pick up whole cities with billions of people and move them, and many (most?) of the cities are close to water.
- kjs3 3y ago
  Way to wait a week to sneak this in. Anti-science thrives when it avoids scrutiny. If you think going back more than 20k years would in any way change the entire point of the cartoon[1], then by all means do the research, draw the graph and show where it's wrong. [1] hint: rate of change is important.
  - midoridensha 3y ago
    I waited a week because posting it sooner gets me "You're posting too fast. Slow down". So some of my replies are quick, others get queued up for days. Fix the site, don't complain to me. Anyway, it's not anti-science. It's well-known that the earth was hotter during the time of the dinosaurs. Sure, rate of change is important, but as I said in the end, the biggest problem for humans is rising sea levels, because of where humans live. Worse storms are also a big problem, though here again where humans live is a big problem since they tend to live on coasts and storms usually hit there.

akvadrako 3y ago

This isn't true. For most of history we just don't have the resolution to see changes over a few hundred years. But we do have recent examples of much quicker temperature changes. During the Younger Dryas the global average temp dropped about 5°C over a few decades and about 1000 years later, rose again just as quickly.