4 ms·

>I'm a global warming believer, but I'm starting to question whether the planet warming won't actually be posivite for a lot of first world economies. It's not

>I'm a global warming believer, but I'm starting to question whether the planet warming won't actually be posivite for a lot of first world economies. It's not about whether it will be good or bad to live in a warmer climate. Maybe it would be better. But the rate of change is the danger. If we were slowly warming over the course of millenia, it'd be a different story. But 2C of warming over less than 100 years is something the planet has never seen before, and that we are ill equipped to deal with.

linuxftw 3y ago
The geological record can't state that the pace of warming we're seeing hasn't happened before. And our real-time measured data prior to digital electronics is laughably imprecise.
- useless999 3y ago
  Yes, and absence of edvidence is not edvidence of absence. Which is why you need to posit a causal mechanism. To say current climate models are overly narrowing the problem domain as to exclude purely natural factors (assuming humanity is not part of nature, but that’s an ontological discussion) you would need to provide an alternative one which can predict past and future pathways. It would also need to be at least as good and not rely on improbable assumptions… which is one reason climate scientists favor the anthropogenic models.
  - linuxftw 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - ramesh31 3y ago
      >Prove that the earth has never warmed faster than it has in the last 100 years. Obviously, you cannot, the data lacks that sort of granularity. This is silly. We know the precise chemical makeup of earth's atmosphere, and by extension its' climate, going back hundreds of thousands of years through antarctic ice core samples, which can be dated to a resolution of less than a hundred years. We are in an absolutely unprecedented time of change right now in the entire history of our species existence. https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/ https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-an...
      - linuxftw 3y ago
        Thanks for linking that. It entirely disproves the 'unprecedented' warming narrative. Figure 5 indicates there's a 10-15 degree rise in temperature in around 200 years 45k years ago. In any case, the data is not granular enough, nor are the enough samples to make any kind of determination on a global scale.
        Toutouxc 3y ago
        Above figure 5: > During the last glacial period, Greenland experienced a sequence of very fast warmings (see Fig. 5). The temperature increased by more than 10°C within a few decades. Other records show us that major changes in atmospheric circulation and climate were experienced all around the northern hemisphere. Antarctica and the Southern Ocean experienced a different pattern, consistent with the idea that these rapid jumps were caused by sudden changes in the transport of heat in the ocean. So what you're seeing is not a 10-15 degree rise in global temperature, but an oversized effect on Greenland in one direction (while other parts of the world were experiencing different effects in different directions).a
zosima 3y ago
This is hogwash, as the resolution of time in archaeological records are generally not this granular, and a lot of short-term trends are being smoothed. Anyway, it's very likely that the younger dryas had a much sharper shift in temperature.
- ramesh31 3y ago
  >the resolution of time in archaeological records are generally not this granular, and a lot of short-term trends are being smoothed. We have precise records from antarctic core samples that can say with near absolute certainty what our climate looked like for hundreds of thousands of years. I won't argue any further about basic chemistry. >very likely that the younger dryas had a much sharper shift in temperature. ...which was a catastrophic event for humanity that nearly wiped us out as a species. So yeah, point taken. But furthermore, what exactly do you have to gain here by claiming that the sky isn't blue? That is the number one thing that confuses me about this idiocy. The earth is warming, and that will cause massive problems for society. It's a cut and dry fact of reality, regardless of your opinions.
  - zosima 3y ago
    > Wrong. We have precise records from antarctic core samples that can say with near absolute certainty what our climate looked like for hundreds of thousands of years. Cool story, bro. The antarctic ice cores contain valuable information, but they do definitely not tell a complete story of neither temperatures, nor anything else across the whole globe on a granular time scale. > ...which was a catastrophic event for humanity, and led to the winnowing of our population to less than 100,000 individuals. So yeah, point taken. Yes, it wasn't fun. But then again people seemed to die when temperatures went very quickly down, and thrive very well when they shortly after increased again. Anyway, you just wrote that such temperature shifts had never happened before. And now you say that it did naturally, not so long ago. What I've got to gain on calling out bad apocalyptic propaganda? I might just be able to avoid the cure for 2C temperature increase, which looks like it may very well make life completely miserable for almost everyone. As they say, the cure for climate change is the disease it claims it's fighting.

linuxftw 3y ago

The geological record can't state that the pace of warming we're seeing hasn't happened before. And our real-time measured data prior to digital electronics is laughably imprecise.

useless999 3y ago
Yes, and absence of edvidence is not edvidence of absence. Which is why you need to posit a causal mechanism. To say current climate models are overly narrowing the problem domain as to exclude purely natural factors (assuming humanity is not part of nature, but that’s an ontological discussion) you would need to provide an alternative one which can predict past and future pathways. It would also need to be at least as good and not rely on improbable assumptions… which is one reason climate scientists favor the anthropogenic models.
- linuxftw 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - ramesh31 3y ago
    >Prove that the earth has never warmed faster than it has in the last 100 years. Obviously, you cannot, the data lacks that sort of granularity. This is silly. We know the precise chemical makeup of earth's atmosphere, and by extension its' climate, going back hundreds of thousands of years through antarctic ice core samples, which can be dated to a resolution of less than a hundred years. We are in an absolutely unprecedented time of change right now in the entire history of our species existence. https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/ https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-an...
    - linuxftw 3y ago
      Thanks for linking that. It entirely disproves the 'unprecedented' warming narrative. Figure 5 indicates there's a 10-15 degree rise in temperature in around 200 years 45k years ago. In any case, the data is not granular enough, nor are the enough samples to make any kind of determination on a global scale.
      - Toutouxc 3y ago
        Above figure 5: > During the last glacial period, Greenland experienced a sequence of very fast warmings (see Fig. 5). The temperature increased by more than 10°C within a few decades. Other records show us that major changes in atmospheric circulation and climate were experienced all around the northern hemisphere. Antarctica and the Southern Ocean experienced a different pattern, consistent with the idea that these rapid jumps were caused by sudden changes in the transport of heat in the ocean. So what you're seeing is not a 10-15 degree rise in global temperature, but an oversized effect on Greenland in one direction (while other parts of the world were experiencing different effects in different directions).a

zosima 3y ago

This is hogwash, as the resolution of time in archaeological records are generally not this granular, and a lot of short-term trends are being smoothed. Anyway, it's very likely that the younger dryas had a much sharper shift in temperature.

ramesh31 3y ago
>the resolution of time in archaeological records are generally not this granular, and a lot of short-term trends are being smoothed. We have precise records from antarctic core samples that can say with near absolute certainty what our climate looked like for hundreds of thousands of years. I won't argue any further about basic chemistry. >very likely that the younger dryas had a much sharper shift in temperature. ...which was a catastrophic event for humanity that nearly wiped us out as a species. So yeah, point taken. But furthermore, what exactly do you have to gain here by claiming that the sky isn't blue? That is the number one thing that confuses me about this idiocy. The earth is warming, and that will cause massive problems for society. It's a cut and dry fact of reality, regardless of your opinions.
- zosima 3y ago
  > Wrong. We have precise records from antarctic core samples that can say with near absolute certainty what our climate looked like for hundreds of thousands of years. Cool story, bro. The antarctic ice cores contain valuable information, but they do definitely not tell a complete story of neither temperatures, nor anything else across the whole globe on a granular time scale. > ...which was a catastrophic event for humanity, and led to the winnowing of our population to less than 100,000 individuals. So yeah, point taken. Yes, it wasn't fun. But then again people seemed to die when temperatures went very quickly down, and thrive very well when they shortly after increased again. Anyway, you just wrote that such temperature shifts had never happened before. And now you say that it did naturally, not so long ago. What I've got to gain on calling out bad apocalyptic propaganda? I might just be able to avoid the cure for 2C temperature increase, which looks like it may very well make life completely miserable for almost everyone. As they say, the cure for climate change is the disease it claims it's fighting.