3 ms·
Nobody who works in the field believes global warming is “only” due to greenhouse gases… So much for the premise of the article.
by epgui 3y ago
Nobody who works in the field believes global warming is “only” due to greenhouse gases… So much for the premise of the article.
- swader999 3y agoWell we should be moving on from CO2 because in this area the effect is nearly saturated. Doubling CO2 from it's current level won't have nearly the impact the previous doubling had.
- hollerith 3y agoCO2 levels are current 1.50 times pre-industrial levels, so "previous doubling" is misleading.
- swader999 3y agoRight but it's not going to do much of anything temp wise from here, maybe .7C higher at worst. This is a useful tool to see this: https://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/ https://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
- acqq 3y agoNo. sixbrx explanation applies: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37772724 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37772724
- sixbrx 3y agoIt's not the saturation at the peak absorbtion frequencies that is driving the warming, it's the widening of the curves which raises absorbtion levels in nearby frequencies. The "saturated" argument was one of the first objections when the science was poorly understood. Krauss's book Physics of Climate CHange has a good account of this history. Check IPCC summaries to see how many models from the literature predict flattening at 0.7C additional warming if we don't curb emissions (spoiler alert: slim to none with many positing 5C or more additional warming in the 2100's if emissions aren't curbed).
- goatlover 3y agoThe article is about the movement around addressing climate change and how it’s presented in public discouse, not the science itself.
- epgui 3y ago> how it’s presented in public discourse My problem is that this article is not helping in this regard.
- JonChesterfield 3y agoDidn't we have to rebrand "global warming" as "climate change" because the warming part turned out to be difficult to observe?
- _aavaa_ 3y agoNot exactly. Increases in average temperature are very easy to measure, [0] for a nice visualization. The change was done to highlight the fact that the consequences are not just higher temperatures but also include, for example, an increased frequency in wild fires, droughts, and other extreme weather events. [0]: https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/300/video-climate-spiral-1880-2022/ https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/300/video-climate...
- acqq 3y agoAnd here the plot up to August 2023: https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a005100/a005161/GISTEMP_Curves_Aug2023_English_degC_2160p60.01799_print.jpg https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a005100/a005161/GISTEM...
- fzeroracer 3y agoNo. It was 'rebranded' because you have senators bringing in snowballs as a claim that global warming didn't exist because the common avenue for denying global warming is to point to the current weather.
- acdha 3y agoAlso because warming can increase the volatility of the weather regionally - for example, messing up the polar vortex caused surprising cold weather in parts of the United States even though the planet was overall warmer. A lot of people would like to complacently react “oh, I’ll just turn the AC up” rather than acknowledge that it’ll mean dealing with worse storms, etc.