4 ms·

>How could we think that making this major change to Earth's climate system wouldn't have huge effects? ppm. Parts per million. 0.0421%

ectopasm83 2y ago
Downvote as much as you want, this is as stupid as GP's point.
seadan83 2y ago
The atmosphere is huge and unevenly distributed. I can't find the exact quote, but to put it in perspective: the weight of the extra C02 added in the last 100 years is more than the sum total of everything humanity has built. The actual quote might be everything from the last 2000 years, regardless, same point. If you weigh all of that CO2, it's an enormous amount.
- ectopasm83 2y ago
  >Wow. huge quantity. That's still a retarded argument and way below any scientific standard. Now that climate change has become the dominant worldview we witness the bigotisation of this cause, where so called "truth" becomes the target of activism as it as it morphs into a form of belief. Not because what it points to is wrong, but because, as in any politically motivated crusade, any mean, path to reach that truth is deemed worthwhile. This noble cause has turned into a matter of adolescent rebellion that is dealt with absolutism and a way to jump into battle that totally disregards strategic considerations. What if the phenomenon is overblown by the political movement that tries to fight its consequences ? What if the proposed solutions are more painful than the problem ? To hell with these considerations ! You're either with us or against us in our fight against apocalypse itself ! It's not surprising that as the hysteria grows and gains more and more minds, and as the climate skeptics crowd thins out, the figure of the "climate change denier" grows in importance. It's important for communities to have a malevolent figure against which hateful unanimity takes shapes. It allows them to endure the test of time, and survive even when the core beliefs are shaken, should the "deniers" turn into tomorrow's saints. May the crowd turn to them as it even forgets it is changing opinion so as to atone its own sins. Isn't it what this all about ? Recognizing climate urgency as a way to pay for the sins of modern life ? What was the point in abandoning religion if it was to repeat exactly the same structure then ?
  - ectopasm83 2y ago
    To those who downvote: admit it, if climate justice was to be established in your terms, I would pay more for my rebellion than someone with a carbon footprint 10 times as big as mine. It's an ideological fight far removed from measurable facts (even if it pretends the opposite) where submission to the ideology overrides any other consideration. Then I acknowledged my sin to you and did not cover up my iniquity. I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the Lord.” And you forgave the guilt of my sin. Psalms 32:5 ^ You're here. Seethe all you want, you're biggots of the kind you hate the most.
    - zztop44 2y ago
      You seem to be much more invested in an ideological battle than anyone else here. Where I’m from, the climate has changed. It is changing. You don’t need scientific instruments to notice it. As far as I can tell, the orthodox AGW theory fits the evidence and has predicted these changes better than any alternative explanation I’ve heard so far. As far as I’m concerned, ideology doesn’t really come into it.
      - ectopasm83 2y ago
        >Where I’m from, the climate has changed. Not an argument for the fact it's driven by human activity. However it suggests that you paint the past climate as some harmonious system on short time ranges: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.2-kiloyear_event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.2-kiloyear_event >the 8.2-kiloyear event was a sudden decrease in global temperatures that occurred approximately 8,200 years before the present, or c. 6,200 BC, and which lasted for the next two to four centuries. >[...] >Estimates of the cooling vary and depend somewhat on the interpretation of the proxy data, but decreases of around 1 to 5 °C (1.8 to 9.0 °F) have been reported. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.2-kiloyear_event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.2-kiloyear_event >Starting around 2200 BC, it probably lasted the entire 22nd century BC. It has been hypothesised to have caused the collapse of the Old Kingdom in Egypt, the Akkadian Empire in Mesopotamia, and the Liangzhu culture in the lower Yangtze River area.[4][5] The drought may also have initiated the collapse of the Indus Valley Civilisation, with some of its population moving southeastward to follow the movement of their desired habitat,[6] as well as the migration of Indo-European-speaking people into India. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_humid_period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_humid_period >The African humid period (AHP; also known by other names) is a climate period in Africa during the late Pleistocene and Holocene geologic epochs, when northern Africa was wetter than today. The covering of much of the Sahara desert by grasses, trees and lakes was caused by changes in the Earth's axial tilt; changes in vegetation and dust in the Sahara which strengthened the African monsoon; and increased greenhouse gases. >One study in 2003 showed that vegetation intrusions in the Sahara can occur within decades after strong rises in atmospheric carbon dioxide[952] but would not cover more than about 45% of the Sahara.[53] That climate study also indicated that vegetation expansion can only occur if grazing or other perturbations to vegetation growth do not hamper it.[953] On the other hand, increased irrigation and other measures to increase vegetation growth such as the Great Green Wall could enhance it.[950] A 2022 study indicated that while increased greenhouse gas concentrations by themselves are not sufficient to start an AHP if greenhouse gas-vegetation feedbacks are ignored, they lower the threshold for orbital changes to induce Sahara greening.
sethrin 2y ago
There are easier "facts" to disprove AGW that don't rely on innumeracy. I mean you don't really care, you just want to have a "gotcha" and not think past that, but AGW was considered disproved for a few decades and you could get some "stumpers" that aren't quite as silly as playing number games. The oceans can absorb a practically infinite amount of CO2, so there's no way for it to build up in the atmosphere in the long run. Also, the atmosphere is already saturated with CO2 to the point where adding more will have no effect. Also, water vapor's absorption spectrum overlaps that of CO2 so there is no way for CO2 to have any additional effect. All of these facts were known more than a century ago, and consequently AGW was considered disproved. "Skeptics" should not read past this point, because it turns out all of those things are misleading. The oceans don't mix fast enough to prevent CO2 buildup, and the action of CO2 is felt not in the lower atmosphere but at the radiative top-of-atmosphere, the point where outgoing infrared radiation is more likely to escape to space than strike another molecule. Adding CO2 makes the CO2-dense region greater in extent, thus the outgoing heat takes longer to leave Earth, thus raising the total atmosphere temperature and causing a nasty feedback mechanism with H2O. Because this changes which elevation energy gets radiated at, we can directly measure it. Checkmate skeptics. To tie this back in to the main point, Callendar was one of the prime movers in rehabilitating the AGW theory (one of his papers amusingly refers to the theory's "checkered past"), but it took until Keeling's work in the late 1950s to conclusively demonstrate the year-over-year increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
- ectopasm83 2y ago
  >Checkmate skeptics. And you're totally missing my point. GP came up with a backwarded way to prove your point so I stooped to that level and came up with the equivalent reasoning that's held on the other side since he was asking for it. Funnily, you're more adamant to address my comment than his because you're more attached to the resulting truth than the reasoning step that lead to it. Admit it, it's not a matter of science anymore, it's entirely politically motivated. I wish you good luck with your control system challenge, I'm sure it will be very nuanced.
  - sethrin 2y ago
    His comment was accurate, yours was misleading, seemingly deliberately. AGW is not in scientific dispute; the skeptics are merely unscientific -- politically motivated, if you will.

ectopasm83 2y ago

Downvote as much as you want, this is as stupid as GP's point.

seadan83 2y ago

The atmosphere is huge and unevenly distributed. I can't find the exact quote, but to put it in perspective: the weight of the extra C02 added in the last 100 years is more than the sum total of everything humanity has built. The actual quote might be everything from the last 2000 years, regardless, same point. If you weigh all of that CO2, it's an enormous amount.

ectopasm83 2y ago
>Wow. huge quantity. That's still a retarded argument and way below any scientific standard. Now that climate change has become the dominant worldview we witness the bigotisation of this cause, where so called "truth" becomes the target of activism as it as it morphs into a form of belief. Not because what it points to is wrong, but because, as in any politically motivated crusade, any mean, path to reach that truth is deemed worthwhile. This noble cause has turned into a matter of adolescent rebellion that is dealt with absolutism and a way to jump into battle that totally disregards strategic considerations. What if the phenomenon is overblown by the political movement that tries to fight its consequences ? What if the proposed solutions are more painful than the problem ? To hell with these considerations ! You're either with us or against us in our fight against apocalypse itself ! It's not surprising that as the hysteria grows and gains more and more minds, and as the climate skeptics crowd thins out, the figure of the "climate change denier" grows in importance. It's important for communities to have a malevolent figure against which hateful unanimity takes shapes. It allows them to endure the test of time, and survive even when the core beliefs are shaken, should the "deniers" turn into tomorrow's saints. May the crowd turn to them as it even forgets it is changing opinion so as to atone its own sins. Isn't it what this all about ? Recognizing climate urgency as a way to pay for the sins of modern life ? What was the point in abandoning religion if it was to repeat exactly the same structure then ?
- ectopasm83 2y ago
  To those who downvote: admit it, if climate justice was to be established in your terms, I would pay more for my rebellion than someone with a carbon footprint 10 times as big as mine. It's an ideological fight far removed from measurable facts (even if it pretends the opposite) where submission to the ideology overrides any other consideration. Then I acknowledged my sin to you and did not cover up my iniquity. I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the Lord.” And you forgave the guilt of my sin. Psalms 32:5 ^ You're here. Seethe all you want, you're biggots of the kind you hate the most.
  - zztop44 2y ago
    You seem to be much more invested in an ideological battle than anyone else here. Where I’m from, the climate has changed. It is changing. You don’t need scientific instruments to notice it. As far as I can tell, the orthodox AGW theory fits the evidence and has predicted these changes better than any alternative explanation I’ve heard so far. As far as I’m concerned, ideology doesn’t really come into it.
    - ectopasm83 2y ago
      >Where I’m from, the climate has changed. Not an argument for the fact it's driven by human activity. However it suggests that you paint the past climate as some harmonious system on short time ranges: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.2-kiloyear_event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.2-kiloyear_event >the 8.2-kiloyear event was a sudden decrease in global temperatures that occurred approximately 8,200 years before the present, or c. 6,200 BC, and which lasted for the next two to four centuries. >[...] >Estimates of the cooling vary and depend somewhat on the interpretation of the proxy data, but decreases of around 1 to 5 °C (1.8 to 9.0 °F) have been reported. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.2-kiloyear_event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.2-kiloyear_event >Starting around 2200 BC, it probably lasted the entire 22nd century BC. It has been hypothesised to have caused the collapse of the Old Kingdom in Egypt, the Akkadian Empire in Mesopotamia, and the Liangzhu culture in the lower Yangtze River area.[4][5] The drought may also have initiated the collapse of the Indus Valley Civilisation, with some of its population moving southeastward to follow the movement of their desired habitat,[6] as well as the migration of Indo-European-speaking people into India. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_humid_period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_humid_period >The African humid period (AHP; also known by other names) is a climate period in Africa during the late Pleistocene and Holocene geologic epochs, when northern Africa was wetter than today. The covering of much of the Sahara desert by grasses, trees and lakes was caused by changes in the Earth's axial tilt; changes in vegetation and dust in the Sahara which strengthened the African monsoon; and increased greenhouse gases. >One study in 2003 showed that vegetation intrusions in the Sahara can occur within decades after strong rises in atmospheric carbon dioxide[952] but would not cover more than about 45% of the Sahara.[53] That climate study also indicated that vegetation expansion can only occur if grazing or other perturbations to vegetation growth do not hamper it.[953] On the other hand, increased irrigation and other measures to increase vegetation growth such as the Great Green Wall could enhance it.[950] A 2022 study indicated that while increased greenhouse gas concentrations by themselves are not sufficient to start an AHP if greenhouse gas-vegetation feedbacks are ignored, they lower the threshold for orbital changes to induce Sahara greening.

sethrin 2y ago

There are easier "facts" to disprove AGW that don't rely on innumeracy. I mean you don't really care, you just want to have a "gotcha" and not think past that, but AGW was considered disproved for a few decades and you could get some "stumpers" that aren't quite as silly as playing number games. The oceans can absorb a practically infinite amount of CO2, so there's no way for it to build up in the atmosphere in the long run. Also, the atmosphere is already saturated with CO2 to the point where adding more will have no effect. Also, water vapor's absorption spectrum overlaps that of CO2 so there is no way for CO2 to have any additional effect. All of these facts were known more than a century ago, and consequently AGW was considered disproved. "Skeptics" should not read past this point, because it turns out all of those things are misleading. The oceans don't mix fast enough to prevent CO2 buildup, and the action of CO2 is felt not in the lower atmosphere but at the radiative top-of-atmosphere, the point where outgoing infrared radiation is more likely to escape to space than strike another molecule. Adding CO2 makes the CO2-dense region greater in extent, thus the outgoing heat takes longer to leave Earth, thus raising the total atmosphere temperature and causing a nasty feedback mechanism with H2O. Because this changes which elevation energy gets radiated at, we can directly measure it. Checkmate skeptics. To tie this back in to the main point, Callendar was one of the prime movers in rehabilitating the AGW theory (one of his papers amusingly refers to the theory's "checkered past"), but it took until Keeling's work in the late 1950s to conclusively demonstrate the year-over-year increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

ectopasm83 2y ago
>Checkmate skeptics. And you're totally missing my point. GP came up with a backwarded way to prove your point so I stooped to that level and came up with the equivalent reasoning that's held on the other side since he was asking for it. Funnily, you're more adamant to address my comment than his because you're more attached to the resulting truth than the reasoning step that lead to it. Admit it, it's not a matter of science anymore, it's entirely politically motivated. I wish you good luck with your control system challenge, I'm sure it will be very nuanced.
- sethrin 2y ago
  His comment was accurate, yours was misleading, seemingly deliberately. AGW is not in scientific dispute; the skeptics are merely unscientific -- politically motivated, if you will.