4 ms·
Suggesting even more it has little to nothing to do with man made climate change. There was a multi-sigma gain in ice shortly before after decades of steady but
by nemo44x 3y ago
Suggesting even more it has little to nothing to do with man made climate change. There was a multi-sigma gain in ice shortly before after decades of steady but slow growth. Certainly man made climate change would have impacted that. A single event isn’t an indicator. Trends are. And the trend is more ice.
There are many variables. And when a few things come together there are rare but large variations. Articles like this are just climate hysteria for climate doomers. So much of this has been politicized that people don’t even realize they’re reading propaganda.
Yes the climate was warmed a bit over the last 40 years after decades of cooling which was preceded by a warming period. The 1930s were the warmest of the 20th century and then we saw decades of cooling.
And yes carbon likely plays a role as we can model an atmosphere and see this. But it’s probably not as significant as the hundreds of other natural variables. Besides for every degree of warming in a lab you need exponentially more carbon. So it’s difficult to accelerate.
Slowly move towards non-carbon energy over the next 50 years. We’ll be fine.
- titzer 3y ago> And yes carbon likely plays a role as we can model an atmosphere and see this. But it’s probably not as significant as the hundreds of other natural variables. And yet, thousands of scientists who spend their entire careers on figuring this out are pretty damn sure what's driving current warming: it's greenhouse gases, primarily CO2. They use this thing called the scientific method, which includes a whole bunch of actually measuring, modeling, predicting, and checking each other's work. Forgive me if that isn't a whole lot more convincing than some offhand conversation with an unknown person on a tech news site.