2 ms·

>There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. I agree it's warming but unequivocally at an unprecedented rate is iffy. For the

by tim333 9mo ago

>There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. I agree it's warming but unequivocally at an unprecedented rate is iffy. For the article they cherry picked a stable period but if you look at the full temperature history as shown here https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2014/05/05/can-make-better-graphs-global-temperature-history/ https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2014/05/05/can-make-b... there has been loads of instability and heating and cooling. Also while CO2 levels are up from about 280 ppm in 1600 to about 430 now, for most of the history of life on earth they were more in the 500 to 5000 range https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_atmosphere_of_Earth#Concentrations_in_the_geologic_past https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_atmosphe... I don't believe climate denial as in saying its not warming but I'm also skeptical of exaggerating the problem by ignoring most climate history. I guess the idea is to panic people into changing behaviour but it doesn't seem to work very well - co2 emissions are higher than ever and a lot of the population think we are doomed when we are not. Unbiased science is better in my opinion.

panarchy 9mo ago
https://thecottonwoodpost.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/emissions-rate-1.jpg https://thecottonwoodpost.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/emi... https://thecottonwoodpost.net/2019/12/10/modern-climate-change-is-10x-faster-than-historic-global-warming-mass-extinction-events/ https://thecottonwoodpost.net/2019/12/10/modern-climate-chan...
- Windchaser 9mo ago
  There's some truth to what they're saying. Simply on a factual basis, the data we have from previous extinction events does not have the temporal resolution needed for us to determine how quickly the temperature increased/decreased. E.g., "how quickly did the atmospheric temperature change after the Chicxulub event?" We don't know. Decent-quality global paleoclimate proxies only extend back ~15k years or so. It's possible that there was rapid global climate change in the past outside of major extinction events; we genuinely don't have the data to tell. This also doesn't really tell us much about how the modern Earth and its ecosystems would handle those old climate shifts, because there is much much less wild lands (and so, less resilience within natural ecosystems). It's true from a climate science perspective, but not useful for assessing the damage that climate change can cause to modern society. And: to the best of our knowledge, the current rate of warming is fast enough to cause major issues. Civilization only arose once we had relatively stable and moderate temperatures, and stable temperatures may be needed to maintain civilization under present technology. Ecological and glaciological studies back this up. And no, scientists are not looking to just scare us into action; the evidence itself should be alarming.
  - tim333 9mo ago
    According to the no doubt very reliable Animal Armageddon: Episode 3: Doomsday it would have gotten very hot on the surface (100C+?) a few hours after Chicxulub then a while after that apparently 26C colder than normal for years due to dust in the atmosphere. Link to a hot bit https://youtu.be/rbznPZHCqVw?t=2269 https://youtu.be/rbznPZHCqVw?t=2269

by tim333 9mo ago

panarchy 9mo ago

https://thecottonwoodpost.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/emissions-rate-1.jpg https://thecottonwoodpost.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/emi... https://thecottonwoodpost.net/2019/12/10/modern-climate-change-is-10x-faster-than-historic-global-warming-mass-extinction-events/ https://thecottonwoodpost.net/2019/12/10/modern-climate-chan...

Windchaser 9mo ago
There's some truth to what they're saying. Simply on a factual basis, the data we have from previous extinction events does not have the temporal resolution needed for us to determine how quickly the temperature increased/decreased. E.g., "how quickly did the atmospheric temperature change after the Chicxulub event?" We don't know. Decent-quality global paleoclimate proxies only extend back ~15k years or so. It's possible that there was rapid global climate change in the past outside of major extinction events; we genuinely don't have the data to tell. This also doesn't really tell us much about how the modern Earth and its ecosystems would handle those old climate shifts, because there is much much less wild lands (and so, less resilience within natural ecosystems). It's true from a climate science perspective, but not useful for assessing the damage that climate change can cause to modern society. And: to the best of our knowledge, the current rate of warming is fast enough to cause major issues. Civilization only arose once we had relatively stable and moderate temperatures, and stable temperatures may be needed to maintain civilization under present technology. Ecological and glaciological studies back this up. And no, scientists are not looking to just scare us into action; the evidence itself should be alarming.
- tim333 9mo ago
  According to the no doubt very reliable Animal Armageddon: Episode 3: Doomsday it would have gotten very hot on the surface (100C+?) a few hours after Chicxulub then a while after that apparently 26C colder than normal for years due to dust in the atmosphere. Link to a hot bit https://youtu.be/rbznPZHCqVw?t=2269 https://youtu.be/rbznPZHCqVw?t=2269