Do you believe there's currently a largely human induced climate crisis?

[Paratus]

I'm not sure what deductions you think I missed, but I'm aware of everything you wrote and don't disagree with it, and none of what you wrote contradicts what I wrote either. I'm not claiming that the reverse-correlation disproves AGW and I'm certainly not saying that CO2 is incapable of driving temperature, merely correcting the assertion that it did so historically. See: "Until very recently " and "That doesn't mean that CO2 doesn't or can't cause or contribute to warming. It does."

The most likely confusion is that I didn't explicitly assert that temperature lags CO2 today, because while this is probably true you obviously can't base it on plotting CO2 vs. T for the last hundred or so years. It's far too short a time frame to smooth out all the noise compared to the historical record. The record shows that historically, CO2 lagged temperature, but it doesn't say that the reverse is true (it also doesn't say that it is false) today.

Saying "supported by current climate theories" is a good way to put it. I could probably have put it better that, while the talking point that the historical record proves that CO2 drives temperature is an ass-backwards mistake popularized by a politician who made a movie, that even though the reverse-correlation doesn't prove anthropogenic global warming, it doesn't disprove it either.

Ya I went back and added I may have taken your point backwards.

 

[hal2kilo]

I'm saying our records only go back a few hundred years, maybe a thousand or so at most. We have some interpretations of things like tree rings and ice samples from a few hundred thousand years. Neither of those time frames are more than a small blip on the Earth's time scale. We have no idea at all if the climate is changing faster now than it did a billion years ago.

I'm saying, what we know is relative to us; to our understanding of time.

Yes, we do have data. Science is amazing.

 

[Jaskalas]

Yes, we do have data. Science is amazing.

Ah, but who tells the people this science, this data?

Not the scientist I think. Mostly people will hear of science from their politicians, their preachers, their salesman, the media lackey working for the politician. You know where I am going with this. From biased sources that were already hand picked to reinforce preexisting beliefs. So if all knowledge is just propaganda.... then there can be no knowledge, no science, no data. Least not any that the public at large will be able to properly consume. Their filters are broken. Their capacity to learn too. It is just gone, replaced by mere parroting of what someone we trust told us.

When someone attacks climate science, what they are really demonstrating is that they do not trust you - and someone they do trust told them otherwise. And team sports is ALL that matters.

 

[Commodus]

Ah, but who tells the people this science, this data?

Not the scientist I think. Mostly people will hear of science from their politicians, their preachers, their salesman, the media lackey working for the politician. You know where I am going with this. From biased sources that were already hand picked to reinforce preexisting beliefs. So if all knowledge is just propaganda.... then there can be no knowledge, no science, no data. Least not any that the public at large will be able to properly consume. Their filters are broken. Their capacity to learn too. It is just gone, replaced by mere parroting of what someone we trust told us.

When someone attacks climate science, what they are really demonstrating is that they do not trust you - and someone they do trust told them otherwise. And team sports is ALL that matters.

In that sense, the greatest challenge right now is to reinstill critical thinking. That is, the ability to look an article or video and make a good judgment call on what's accurate even if there's some spin. To not only question authority, but to question the people questioning that authority.

That's been one of the biggest problems in the I-heard-it-on-Facebook era: the skepticism and rigor is only surface-level. People will challenge the official narrative, but blindly trust anyone else who doubts that narrative. Hence those who'll happily ask "is human-made climate change real?" while believing a quack who peddles pseudoscience at best. It's all about the counterculture posturing rather than looking for reliable evidence.

As I like to put it: sometimes the consensus exists for a very good reason.

 

[cytg111]

Earth is trapping ‘unprecedented’ amount of heat, Nasa says

Scientists from agency and Noaa say Earth’s ‘energy imbalance’ roughly doubled from 2005 to 2019 in ‘alarming’ way

www.theguardian.com

Over the next couple of years, get that cabin secured, canned food and enough shells to last for 20 years.

The end is coming.

 

[Ajay]

Earth is trapping ‘unprecedented’ amount of heat, Nasa says

Scientists from agency and Noaa say Earth’s ‘energy imbalance’ roughly doubled from 2005 to 2019 in ‘alarming’ way

www.theguardian.com

Over the next couple of years, get that cabin secured, canned food and enough shells to last for 20 years.

The end is coming.

Nah, the US is going conquer and then plunder Britain for the food we need. Super secret military plans. // JK!

Seriously though, this caught my eye:

Researchers also said that a “naturally occurring” shift in the Pacific ocean from a cool phase to a warm one probably had a significant role in amplifying this energy imbalance.

I wonder if that natural shit shift is what put the US West over top in June?

 

[pmv]

Nah, the US is going conquer and then plunder Britain for the food we need. Super secret military plans. // JK!

Your plan is to eat _British_ cuisine?

Are you sure it wouldn't be better to do something about climate change before it comes to that?

 

[zzyzxroad]

I am not qualified to draw my own conclusion on the subject but I trust the vast majority of people who are.

 

[Ajay]

Your plan is to eat _British_ cuisine?

Are you sure it wouldn't be better to do something about climate change before it comes to that?

I was sort of hoping to get something for that $700B+ a year we spend on the military. Ugh, sorry, I mean the $700B+ a year jobs program. No socialism in that . // off topic

 

[woolfe9998]

Your plan is to eat _British_ cuisine?

Are you sure it wouldn't be better to do something about climate change before it comes to that?

Wait, you have "cuisine" there? When I was there, I would have generously called it "food" but the word "cuisine" would not have occurred to me.

 

[pmv]

I was sort of hoping to get something for that $700B+ a year we spend on the military. Ugh, sorry, I mean the $700B+ a year jobs program. No socialism in that . // off topic

My advice would be to invade France. Or maybe Italy. You aren't likely to get your $700B worth from Cornish pasties, angel delight, and deep-fried Mars bars. Don't listen to the broadsheet columnist types who will tell you that 'actually British food is very good these days' on the basis of a small number of posh London restaurants. The day-to-day diet of most people is still as Godawful as it ever was.

 

[MrSquished]

My advice would be to invade France. Or maybe Italy. You aren't likely to get your $700B worth from Cornish pasties, angel delight, and deep-fried Mars bars. Don't listen to the broadsheet columnist types who will tell you that 'actually British food is very good these days' on the basis of a small number of posh London restaurants. The day-to-day diet of most people is still as Godawful as it ever was.

Why are you guys so against immigrants if the odds are they might improve your culinary world?

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Yes, we do have data. Science is amazing.

The person you quoted made a good point. The farther back our data goes, the less "dense" the data points are. We have a great certainty that we know how temp changed year by year 500 years ago but the data points from 35,000 years ago might be 100 years apart. There might not be enough data points from 3,000,000 years ago to know what happened every year or even every millennia. We actually don't know that there has never been a warming period this fast. It doesn't LOOK like there has been, but I don't know how anyone can claim with absolute certainty that there weren't 10 warming/cooling periods between a pair of data points, or even claim that we know within the exact decade of when a measurement belongs to.

 

[cytg111]

The data points I want to know about is ahead of us, not behind us. I dont really give a crap if its man made or not… it can be super normal swings in the grand scheme of things… I dont care.
1. Extrapolation of near data points suggests what kind of heat going forward in the near term. 10 years. 20 years.
2. At what point do we believe that people in “hot spots” will begin to immigrate.

Europe just just had a shake towards the fascist right cause a wave of immigrants partly because Putin carpeted bombed civilians in Syria. When the REAL wave starts… Man, this shit is gonna crumble.

 

[Paratus]

The person you quoted made a good point. The farther back our data goes, the less "dense" the data points are. We have a great certainty that we know how temp changed year by year 500 years ago but the data points from 35,000 years ago might be 100 years apart. There might not be enough data points from 3,000,000 years ago to know what happened every year or even every millennia. We actually don't know that there has never been a warming period this fast. It doesn't LOOK like there has been, but I don't know how anyone can claim with absolute certainty that there weren't 10 warming/cooling periods between a pair of data points, or even claim that we know within the exact decade of when a measurement belongs to.

No. It’s not a good point at all.

First the unspoken assumption that “maybe it’s warmed faster naturally in the past and we just don’t know about it”, is that if it happened naturally it’s fine. It is NOT fine. Our civilization is based on the mean climate since about 1850. It’s rapidly changing from that mean and will cost lots of $$$ and lives to adapt to.

Second we understand the physical processes that govern the climate. There’s only so many sources of energy to drive the climate and there’s only so many ways for that heat to enter and leave the Earths climate. Massive changes in climate means large changes in the flow of energy around the Earth. These changes leave markers in the geologic record.

Lastly in the climate record we have periods of fast changes. A good example is the Permian extinction where 70% of life on land and 96% of oceans life went extinct. Massive volcanism burned through the Siberia traps, an area containing massive amounts of coal and other deposits that released large amounts of greenhouse gases and rapidly changed the climate.

Siberian Traps likely culprit for end-Permian extinction

MIT researchers have determined that the Siberian Traps, a massive era of volcanic activity on Earth, erupted at the right time, and for the right duration, to have been a likely trigger for the end-Permian mass extinction.

news.mit.edu

That climate change was slower than what’s going on now. For your hypothesis of many rapid changes hidden in the historical record you’ll need to provide a mechanism for these rapid changes and other mechanisms that hid the effects we know large changes in climate leave - like mass extinctions.

Until then it’s not a good point.

 

[hal2kilo]

My advice would be to invade France. Or maybe Italy. You aren't likely to get your $700B worth from Cornish pasties, angel delight, and deep-fried Mars bars. Don't listen to the broadsheet columnist types who will tell you that 'actually British food is very good these days' on the basis of a small number of posh London restaurants. The day-to-day diet of most people is still as Godawful as it ever was.

Still looking for fried ham hock fritters with red onion chutney. Best pub food ever!

 

[Pipeline 1010]

No. It’s not a good point at all.

First the unspoken assumption that “maybe it’s warmed faster naturally in the past and we just don’t know about it”, is that if it happened naturally it’s fine. It is NOT fine. Our civilization is based on the mean climate since about 1850. It’s rapidly changing from that mean and will cost lots of $$$ and lives to adapt to.

My point wasn't along the lines of "if it happened before then it is fine" but more along the lines of we don't know with any certainty that it hasn't happened. I am not a fan of the "this has for sure never happened before because we have science and can prove it" argument and I don't think people should use it. Regardless, we should be doing all we can to protect our environment whether this has happened before or not.

That climate change was slower than what’s going on now. For your hypothesis of many rapid changes hidden in the historical record you’ll need to provide a mechanism for these rapid changes and other mechanisms that hid the effects we know large changes in climate leave - like mass extinctions.

Until then it’s not a good point.

I don't have to do any such thing. I am pointing out that our records become more sporadic and theoretical and subject to error the further back they go. The scientists who collect and record this data would agree. It is not a controversial observation to make. I don't have to come up with a reason/mechanism/explanation for how temps could have changed rapidly in order to say that we don't know for a certainty that it hasn't happened. My position is NOT that it has happened and I haven't made this claim. The position is that we don't have the data to state this with absolute certainty, yet nobody challenges it when it is stated as proven fact.

Still, this is all abstract and academic. I think we should all agree that we shouldn't shit on our environment either way.

 

[weblooker2021]

Humans is not the primary reasons why global warming started. Global warming/cooling is natural occurrence. However, humans accelerated it above the level of natural global warming. As such yes humans are responsible for global warming.

 

[Paratus]

My point wasn't along the lines of "if it happened before then it is fine" but more along the lines of we don't know with any certainty that it hasn't happened. I am not a fan of the "this has for sure never happened before because we have science and can prove it" argument and I don't think people should use it. Regardless, we should be doing all we can to protect our environment whether this has happened before or not.



I don't have to do any such thing. I am pointing out that our records become more sporadic and theoretical and subject to error the further back they go. The scientists who collect and record this data would agree. It is not a controversial observation to make. I don't have to come up with a reason/mechanism/explanation for how temps could have changed rapidly in order to say that we don't know for a certainty that it hasn't happened. My position is NOT that it has happened and I haven't made this claim. The position is that we don't have the data to state this with absolute certainty, yet nobody challenges it when it is stated as proven fact.

Still, this is all abstract and academic. I think we should all agree that we shouldn't shit on our environment either way.

It seems your point is the temperature could have increased this fast in the past but left no record that we have found despite the records we see being created by what’s happening now. Also the historical records we’ve found when the climate has changed quickly in the past?

Ok I guess? But so what? A hypothetical rapid increase in climate temperature that has no effect and leaves no record can be readily ignored. It’s just another example of “Russell’s Teapot”

Russell's teapot - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

If your point is there are errors and gaps in the climate record - sure but these error bars are defined in the scientific papers and the authors have no issues saying the current rate of increase is novel and man-made.