3 ms·

This strongly suggests that the idea of "run away" greenhouse effect, wherein the Earth latches into a permanent irreversible hotter state ("like Venus", the me

by tjic 14y ago

This strongly suggests that the idea of "run away" greenhouse effect, wherein the Earth latches into a permanent irreversible hotter state ("like Venus", the media was saying back in the 80s and 90s) is not true: the Earth has been 10-20 degrees F warmer in the past and has declined from there.

TimJRobinson 14y ago
Yea its been known for a long time that that was the case. The problem with modern climate change is the speed at which its changing. In the past plants and animals evolved to deal with changes as they appened over millions of years, and now they have to adapt in just a few decades which is impossible for most.
andyjohnson0 14y ago
Obviously the earth hasn't latched into a "permanent irreversible hotter state". The present climate and the fact that we even exist to talk about it demonstrates that. What exactly are you trying to say? And the fact that the earth is cooler now than at some arbitrary time(s) in the past doesn't prove that such a state isn't possible either, only that it hasn't happened yet. The earth was 5-10 degF warmer in the Middle Miocene, about 15-20 million years ago. Inferring from this that global temperatures are following a declining trend is extremely misleading.
- tjic 14y ago
  > Obviously the earth hasn't latched into a "permanent irreversible hotter state". The present climate and the fact that we even exist to talk about it demonstrates that. What exactly are you trying to say? There are two ways that we might not have latched into a runaway greenhouse effect: 1) the effect exists with a trigger temperature, and we have never hit that trigger temperature 2) the effect does not exist. The fact that Antarctica has been tropical and is not now suggests that #1 is false. > Inferring from this that global temperatures are following a declining trend is extremely misleading. WHERE did you get the belief that I was suggesting that? All I said was that apparently there is not an unrecoverable latch-up in the next 10-20 degrees.
jellicle 14y ago
There's always a global warming denier... The climate stayed in the warm state described in the article for some 20,000,000 years. Which is to say a few thousand times longer than all of recorded human history. Anything over 100 years is "permanent" as far as humans are concerned. The climate could easily change for a period of time that is 5 or more orders of magnitude larger than "permanent". TL;DR: You're engaging in dumbass wordplay.
- tjic 14y ago
  > There's always a global warming denier... I did not REMOTELY deny global warming. I said that the propaganda that there's a irreversible "cliff" is false. > Anything over 100 years is "permanent" as far as humans are concerned. So the Medeival Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age were both "permanent"? I think

by tjic 14y ago

TimJRobinson 14y ago

Yea its been known for a long time that that was the case. The problem with modern climate change is the speed at which its changing. In the past plants and animals evolved to deal with changes as they appened over millions of years, and now they have to adapt in just a few decades which is impossible for most.

andyjohnson0 14y ago

Obviously the earth hasn't latched into a "permanent irreversible hotter state". The present climate and the fact that we even exist to talk about it demonstrates that. What exactly are you trying to say? And the fact that the earth is cooler now than at some arbitrary time(s) in the past doesn't prove that such a state isn't possible either, only that it hasn't happened yet. The earth was 5-10 degF warmer in the Middle Miocene, about 15-20 million years ago. Inferring from this that global temperatures are following a declining trend is extremely misleading.

tjic 14y ago
> Obviously the earth hasn't latched into a "permanent irreversible hotter state". The present climate and the fact that we even exist to talk about it demonstrates that. What exactly are you trying to say? There are two ways that we might not have latched into a runaway greenhouse effect: 1) the effect exists with a trigger temperature, and we have never hit that trigger temperature 2) the effect does not exist. The fact that Antarctica has been tropical and is not now suggests that #1 is false. > Inferring from this that global temperatures are following a declining trend is extremely misleading. WHERE did you get the belief that I was suggesting that? All I said was that apparently there is not an unrecoverable latch-up in the next 10-20 degrees.

jellicle 14y ago

There's always a global warming denier... The climate stayed in the warm state described in the article for some 20,000,000 years. Which is to say a few thousand times longer than all of recorded human history. Anything over 100 years is "permanent" as far as humans are concerned. The climate could easily change for a period of time that is 5 or more orders of magnitude larger than "permanent". TL;DR: You're engaging in dumbass wordplay.

tjic 14y ago
> There's always a global warming denier... I did not REMOTELY deny global warming. I said that the propaganda that there's a irreversible "cliff" is false. > Anything over 100 years is "permanent" as far as humans are concerned. So the Medeival Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age were both "permanent"? I think