4 ms·

That "temperature" is not your usual daily temperature. It is about global yearly average temperature. The way it manifest in the day after day lives is that th

That "temperature" is not your usual daily temperature. It is about global yearly average temperature. The way it manifest in the day after day lives is that the global weather system have more energy for i.e. powering extreme weather events. So what you will get extremer cold, heatwaves, cyclones, droughts, rains and so on. And our civilization is built upon more or less mild and predictable weather. That kinds of events will compromise agricultural productions, make from cities to smaller settlements risky to live on, disrupt supply chains, air/sea travel, and so on. We are having right now a small hint on how destructive this kind of change, and it only will get worse from now on. Another thing that will do that in a slower way is to raise enough average temperatures to trigger tipping points and activate or make stronger positive feedback loops that will make global average temperature to rise even more, so it won't be the end of the change. The 1.5ºC mark by the end of the century was to avoid reaching those thresholds or slow down the process as much as possible, but if we reach that mark this decade I don't think things will hold below 2ºC by 2050, much less 2100.

jakear 3y ago
[flagged]
- uoaei 3y ago
  Is this sarcasm/jest? If so it's based on a gravely flawed understanding of thermodynamics and definitely doesn't make the point you think it makes.
  - jakear 3y ago
    Explain what about thermodynamics allows for a closed system to progress forward in time without increasing disorder please. Or are you proposing we export the disorder to outer-space? If so that’s a plan I’d love to hear.
    - uoaei 3y ago
      There's a very large difference and lots of possible expressible dynamics between "no entropy increase" and "lots of entropy increase". Keep showing us how little you know about the topics on which you comment. PS the Earth is not a closed system either. The incident sunlight is the only thing that keeps the Earth warm at the macro scale, and energy radiates back out mostly in the infrared range. The amount of greenhouse gases can differ and the global temperature will differ as a result.
      - jakear 3y ago
        And does our specific position on that gradient matter, at all? Again, I’d love to hear your explanation of how we’re exporting this entropy. Black body radiation? I don’t think that’ll be enough.
        magicalhippo 3y ago
        > Black body radiation? Yes[1][2]. > I don’t think that’ll be enough. Nature doesn't care about what we think. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#Earth's_energy_flows https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#Earth'... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_temperature#Earth_effective_temperature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_temperature#Earth_ef...
        jakear 3y ago
        The earth has a certain amount of energy sequestered. The sun provides a certain (constant) amount additional per year. Black body radiation emits a certain (variable, proportionate to temperature, perhaps) amount per year. Everything else is just meaningless argument about constant factors.
        magicalhippo 3y ago
        > Everything else is just meaningless argument about constant factors. For the inhabitants of Earth, it most certainly is not meaningless, and the whole point is that they're not constant factors. For one, the composition of the atmosphere plays a huge role, and it is not constant thanks to both natural and human-driven processes.
magicalhippo 3y ago
I think the focus on the increase in mean temperature has been detrimental. Joe and Jill Average don't think about how 4,4,5,6,6 and 1,1,5,9,9 have the same average, and certainly have little understanding for how the changes in average temperature manifests in changes to the weather. That said, humans in general are reactionary and adaptive, and don't plan that far ahead. We'll burn through our lottery winnings or inheritance and end up broke having to go back to work. I expect we'll do the same with our climate.
- machina_ex_deus 3y ago
  Joe and Jill average must've missed their probability courses and are still conflating mean with variance. The climate cult seems to like that conflation because while their models might predict some very small trend in the mean temperatures, I've yet to see any model predict a change to the variance of temperatures. Which is quite expected as the variance of temperatures, even over a single day, are orders of magnitudes higher than the small trend over decades. I don't think anyone predicts any measurable change in the variance. That would be like noticing a little pebble out of a huge mountain. The climate cult do love to confuse people about it. After predicting the mean turned to be easily falsifiable by the average person paying attention, they turned into a narrative that tells you about greater variance without telling you that no, variance isn't actually expected to meaningfully change and using narrative instead of just saying variance (because then everyone would immediately call their bluff). Apropos misleading narratives, greenhouses actually don't warm because of anything similar to the greenhouse effect, but just because of lack of convection. Yet another misleading narrative point. They do love to bend and fabricate intricate stories using misguided intuition.
  - ttonkytonk 3y ago
    I don't know, what you said is pretty confusing. Either the temperatures are increasing or they're not. Either CO2 is retaining heat and increasing temperatures or it's not. But ocean surface temperatures are 0.9°C warmer whereas temperatures over land are 1.9°C warmer. And the Arctic is warming at least three times faster than the globe as a whole since the mid-1990s primarily due to the "ice-albedo feedback" where the melting of sun-reflecting ice results in more heat absorption. (per "The Climate Book" {Greta Thunberg} pp 78 and 62)
jgalt212 3y ago
> And our civilization is built upon more or less mild and predictable weather. Don't tell the HVAC industry.

jakear 3y ago

[flagged]

uoaei 3y ago
Is this sarcasm/jest? If so it's based on a gravely flawed understanding of thermodynamics and definitely doesn't make the point you think it makes.
- jakear 3y ago
  Explain what about thermodynamics allows for a closed system to progress forward in time without increasing disorder please. Or are you proposing we export the disorder to outer-space? If so that’s a plan I’d love to hear.
  - uoaei 3y ago
    There's a very large difference and lots of possible expressible dynamics between "no entropy increase" and "lots of entropy increase". Keep showing us how little you know about the topics on which you comment. PS the Earth is not a closed system either. The incident sunlight is the only thing that keeps the Earth warm at the macro scale, and energy radiates back out mostly in the infrared range. The amount of greenhouse gases can differ and the global temperature will differ as a result.
    - jakear 3y ago
      And does our specific position on that gradient matter, at all? Again, I’d love to hear your explanation of how we’re exporting this entropy. Black body radiation? I don’t think that’ll be enough.
      - magicalhippo 3y ago
        > Black body radiation? Yes[1][2]. > I don’t think that’ll be enough. Nature doesn't care about what we think. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#Earth's_energy_flows https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#Earth'... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_temperature#Earth_effective_temperature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_temperature#Earth_ef...
        jakear 3y ago
        The earth has a certain amount of energy sequestered. The sun provides a certain (constant) amount additional per year. Black body radiation emits a certain (variable, proportionate to temperature, perhaps) amount per year. Everything else is just meaningless argument about constant factors.
        magicalhippo 3y ago
        > Everything else is just meaningless argument about constant factors. For the inhabitants of Earth, it most certainly is not meaningless, and the whole point is that they're not constant factors. For one, the composition of the atmosphere plays a huge role, and it is not constant thanks to both natural and human-driven processes.

magicalhippo 3y ago

I think the focus on the increase in mean temperature has been detrimental. Joe and Jill Average don't think about how 4,4,5,6,6 and 1,1,5,9,9 have the same average, and certainly have little understanding for how the changes in average temperature manifests in changes to the weather. That said, humans in general are reactionary and adaptive, and don't plan that far ahead. We'll burn through our lottery winnings or inheritance and end up broke having to go back to work. I expect we'll do the same with our climate.

machina_ex_deus 3y ago
Joe and Jill average must've missed their probability courses and are still conflating mean with variance. The climate cult seems to like that conflation because while their models might predict some very small trend in the mean temperatures, I've yet to see any model predict a change to the variance of temperatures. Which is quite expected as the variance of temperatures, even over a single day, are orders of magnitudes higher than the small trend over decades. I don't think anyone predicts any measurable change in the variance. That would be like noticing a little pebble out of a huge mountain. The climate cult do love to confuse people about it. After predicting the mean turned to be easily falsifiable by the average person paying attention, they turned into a narrative that tells you about greater variance without telling you that no, variance isn't actually expected to meaningfully change and using narrative instead of just saying variance (because then everyone would immediately call their bluff). Apropos misleading narratives, greenhouses actually don't warm because of anything similar to the greenhouse effect, but just because of lack of convection. Yet another misleading narrative point. They do love to bend and fabricate intricate stories using misguided intuition.
- ttonkytonk 3y ago
  I don't know, what you said is pretty confusing. Either the temperatures are increasing or they're not. Either CO2 is retaining heat and increasing temperatures or it's not. But ocean surface temperatures are 0.9°C warmer whereas temperatures over land are 1.9°C warmer. And the Arctic is warming at least three times faster than the globe as a whole since the mid-1990s primarily due to the "ice-albedo feedback" where the melting of sun-reflecting ice results in more heat absorption. (per "The Climate Book" {Greta Thunberg} pp 78 and 62)

jgalt212 3y ago

> And our civilization is built upon more or less mild and predictable weather. Don't tell the HVAC industry.