5 ms·

Meh, don't care. Seriously, we had ice ages. Temperatures go up and down. I can't bring myself to care about 86 instead of 83 degrees F in the summer and 23 i

by blagie 3y ago

Meh, don't care. Seriously, we had ice ages. Temperatures go up and down. I can't bring myself to care about 86 instead of 83 degrees F in the summer and 23 instead of 20 in the winter. It's like moving a few hundred miles south. People get by fine. I mean, I'm worried about all the weird chemicals in my food. That seems kinda wacky. I'm worried about all the biodiversity disappearing. Extreme-weather-itis would be scary, if it's actually a thing. I'm worried about breathing more CO2, and especially about the same in water (ocean acidification). I'm worried about many of the other impacts on climate. "Climate change" was a step forward in terminology from "global warming," but we need about five more steps before it's something people care about. We also need to acknowledge how much we don't know. Most of our models from 20 years ago didn't play out, which was obvious if you read the papers instead of listening to Al Gore. Bad things happened, but not the ones we thought would happen. It's a chaotic system. It doesn't work predictably.

MR4D 3y ago
Agreed. Many more people will die of heart disease And cancer than from global warming. Too many chemicals in our environment and food chain.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
defrost 3y ago
> I can't bring myself to care about 86 instead of 83 degrees F in the summer and 23 instead of 20 in the winter. Respectfully, you've not understood the measure and the meaning of global average. For most of the past 200K years, most of human 'advanced' existance there's been little change in the global mean and all the seasons have changed as per written history and your recollection. Lifting the global mean introduces more energy to the climate cells about the globe, driving more extreme changes, intoducing greater storms, setting us up for even more change as water vapor and methane levels rise which themselves are greater insulators that trap more heat than CO2.
- blagie 3y ago
  > driving more extreme changes, intoducing [sp] greater storms Respectfully, the mean temperature is the wrong measure for that. You want to look at measures like variance / std. div. -- the second moment and not the first. That's why I listed under "Extreme-weather-itis" under things I care about. > setting us up for even more change as water vapor and methane levels rise which themselves are greater insulators that trap more heat than CO2 Respectfully, you don't know that. The phrase should be "setting ourselves up for something possibly very bad." Extrapolation works worse than interpolation, and it's a chaotic system. Respectfully, the level of imprecision and propaganda here is a root cause of scepticism. People can understand why we don't want to play Russian Roulette, especially when most of the barrels are loaded, each with a different munition. That's more honest and likely leads to the outcome you want.
  - abdullahkhalids 3y ago
    > You want to look at measures like variance / std. div. -- the second moment and not the first. Possible concrete impacts of climate are discussed in detail in IPCC reports [1, 2]. For instance, > Climate change will make some current food production areas unsuitable (high confidence). Current global crop and livestock areas will increasingly become climatically unsuitable under a high- emission scenario (high confidence) (e.g., 10% by 2050, over 30% by 2100 under SSP-8.5 versus below 8% by 2100 under SSP1-2.6). Increased, potentially concurrent climate extremes will periodically increase simultaneous losses in major food-producing regions. [1] https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/ [2] Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/
    - blagie 3y ago
      > Climate change will make some current food production areas unsuitable (high confidence). Current global crop and livestock areas will increasingly become climatically unsuitable under a high- emission scenario (high confidence) (e.g., 10% by 2050, over 30% by 2100 under SSP-8.5 versus below 8% by 2100 under SSP1-2.6). Increased, potentially concurrent climate extremes will periodically increase simultaneous losses in major food-producing regions. I believe that's simply expanding on my list of things in the "care about" bucket in my original post. Also, notice the first two words in your quote: "climate change." Not "global warming." Global warming doesn't show up there. The fixation on degrees C is making everyone miss the forest from the trees.
st-keller 3y ago
„It's a chaotic system. It doesn't work predictably“ is exactly the thing that worries me most - because that means it could get way worse than predicted today!
- blagie 3y ago
  Absolutely.
tasty_freeze 3y ago
Ice ages occurred over the span of thousands to tens of thousands of years. The current change is happening in the order of decades to centuries. Not only will plants and animals have a hard time adapting to change that rapid, it will cause huge amounts of misery. Maybe where you live 83 vs 86 degrees doesn't matter, but there are hundreds of millions of people that are living on the edge already. Once a century droughts are becoming common. When people are fighting for their lives and the lives of their children, they will move anywhere where things are marginally better ... causing economic chaos, and even war. But that doesn't seem to affect you in your air conditioned house. > Most of our models from 20 years ago didn't play out, That is false. The IPCC reports of 20-25 years ago are wrong only in that they undershot the severity. All of them, for political reasons, knowingly under reported the severity. I agree, don't listen to Al Gore, listen to the climate scientists. BTW, why do you think the paper you are reading is any more informed about climate change than Al Gore?
- blagie 3y ago
  > Ice ages occurred over the span of thousands to tens of thousands of years See "Little Ice Age" and it's effects. > Once a century droughts are becoming common "Climate change" not "global warming." On the whole, global warming makes for more rain. You can see another post here about rising atmospheric humidity. > I agree, don't listen to Al Gore, listen to the climate scientists. BTW, why do you think the paper you are reading is any more informed about climate change than Al Gore? A key difference are things like error bars. With /proper/ error bars (accounting for all possible sources of error), right-wing media would have a hard time playing back false predictions.
  - tasty_freeze 3y ago
    Both terms have been in use for at least 50 years. It is a complex topic so no matter which two word moniker you coin to represent it, you can always poke a hole in it. The people who think "climate change" is a fig leaf to cover up the fact that the globe didn't warm monotonically are simply ignorant. The models have always shown that some places will get drier, some will get wetter, some places cooler. One of the things deniers always cherry pick is when some study mentions higher snowfall or rainfall in some particular region of the world. Odd that they believe the scientist when when they thing the datum supports their claim, but then will dismiss the same person who wrote the paper they cited as being in the pocket of George Soros or someone when the researcher doesn't support their preferred conclusion.
dreamworld 3y ago
Temperature increases will be much larger over land. The values are for global averages, and most heat capacity is in the ocean. Not only that but some places will warm far more than others. Yes, all the other stuff is bad too, including ocean acidification. But they're intimately connected, and the rate of temperature change might be one of the largest changes in habitats worldwide.

by blagie 3y ago

MR4D 3y ago

Agreed. Many more people will die of heart disease And cancer than from global warming. Too many chemicals in our environment and food chain.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

defrost 3y ago

> I can't bring myself to care about 86 instead of 83 degrees F in the summer and 23 instead of 20 in the winter. Respectfully, you've not understood the measure and the meaning of global average. For most of the past 200K years, most of human 'advanced' existance there's been little change in the global mean and all the seasons have changed as per written history and your recollection. Lifting the global mean introduces more energy to the climate cells about the globe, driving more extreme changes, intoducing greater storms, setting us up for even more change as water vapor and methane levels rise which themselves are greater insulators that trap more heat than CO2.

blagie 3y ago
> driving more extreme changes, intoducing [sp] greater storms Respectfully, the mean temperature is the wrong measure for that. You want to look at measures like variance / std. div. -- the second moment and not the first. That's why I listed under "Extreme-weather-itis" under things I care about. > setting us up for even more change as water vapor and methane levels rise which themselves are greater insulators that trap more heat than CO2 Respectfully, you don't know that. The phrase should be "setting ourselves up for something possibly very bad." Extrapolation works worse than interpolation, and it's a chaotic system. Respectfully, the level of imprecision and propaganda here is a root cause of scepticism. People can understand why we don't want to play Russian Roulette, especially when most of the barrels are loaded, each with a different munition. That's more honest and likely leads to the outcome you want.
- abdullahkhalids 3y ago
  > You want to look at measures like variance / std. div. -- the second moment and not the first. Possible concrete impacts of climate are discussed in detail in IPCC reports [1, 2]. For instance, > Climate change will make some current food production areas unsuitable (high confidence). Current global crop and livestock areas will increasingly become climatically unsuitable under a high- emission scenario (high confidence) (e.g., 10% by 2050, over 30% by 2100 under SSP-8.5 versus below 8% by 2100 under SSP1-2.6). Increased, potentially concurrent climate extremes will periodically increase simultaneous losses in major food-producing regions. [1] https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/ [2] Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/
  - blagie 3y ago
    > Climate change will make some current food production areas unsuitable (high confidence). Current global crop and livestock areas will increasingly become climatically unsuitable under a high- emission scenario (high confidence) (e.g., 10% by 2050, over 30% by 2100 under SSP-8.5 versus below 8% by 2100 under SSP1-2.6). Increased, potentially concurrent climate extremes will periodically increase simultaneous losses in major food-producing regions. I believe that's simply expanding on my list of things in the "care about" bucket in my original post. Also, notice the first two words in your quote: "climate change." Not "global warming." Global warming doesn't show up there. The fixation on degrees C is making everyone miss the forest from the trees.

st-keller 3y ago

„It's a chaotic system. It doesn't work predictably“ is exactly the thing that worries me most - because that means it could get way worse than predicted today!

blagie 3y ago
Absolutely.

tasty_freeze 3y ago

Ice ages occurred over the span of thousands to tens of thousands of years. The current change is happening in the order of decades to centuries. Not only will plants and animals have a hard time adapting to change that rapid, it will cause huge amounts of misery. Maybe where you live 83 vs 86 degrees doesn't matter, but there are hundreds of millions of people that are living on the edge already. Once a century droughts are becoming common. When people are fighting for their lives and the lives of their children, they will move anywhere where things are marginally better ... causing economic chaos, and even war. But that doesn't seem to affect you in your air conditioned house. > Most of our models from 20 years ago didn't play out, That is false. The IPCC reports of 20-25 years ago are wrong only in that they undershot the severity. All of them, for political reasons, knowingly under reported the severity. I agree, don't listen to Al Gore, listen to the climate scientists. BTW, why do you think the paper you are reading is any more informed about climate change than Al Gore?

blagie 3y ago
> Ice ages occurred over the span of thousands to tens of thousands of years See "Little Ice Age" and it's effects. > Once a century droughts are becoming common "Climate change" not "global warming." On the whole, global warming makes for more rain. You can see another post here about rising atmospheric humidity. > I agree, don't listen to Al Gore, listen to the climate scientists. BTW, why do you think the paper you are reading is any more informed about climate change than Al Gore? A key difference are things like error bars. With /proper/ error bars (accounting for all possible sources of error), right-wing media would have a hard time playing back false predictions.
- tasty_freeze 3y ago
  Both terms have been in use for at least 50 years. It is a complex topic so no matter which two word moniker you coin to represent it, you can always poke a hole in it. The people who think "climate change" is a fig leaf to cover up the fact that the globe didn't warm monotonically are simply ignorant. The models have always shown that some places will get drier, some will get wetter, some places cooler. One of the things deniers always cherry pick is when some study mentions higher snowfall or rainfall in some particular region of the world. Odd that they believe the scientist when when they thing the datum supports their claim, but then will dismiss the same person who wrote the paper they cited as being in the pocket of George Soros or someone when the researcher doesn't support their preferred conclusion.

dreamworld 3y ago

Temperature increases will be much larger over land. The values are for global averages, and most heat capacity is in the ocean. Not only that but some places will warm far more than others. Yes, all the other stuff is bad too, including ocean acidification. But they're intimately connected, and the rate of temperature change might be one of the largest changes in habitats worldwide.