Climate Change(d)?

[Jimmy Higgins]

I feel slightly more respect for those who destroy my quality of life and say "because fuck you, bilby, I wanna get rich and you're in my way", than I do for those who destroy my quality of life and say "because were the good guys, doing this because it's virtuous and nice, and you should thank us for it".

That the latter group sincerely believes that they are doing good, and have zero clue that they are badly mistaken, does not make me feel one iota better.

This does make me think of a response to people with the anti-windmill signs in some Lake side counties in Ohio. You never see them put a sign for a new nuclear plant in their county.

 

[bilby]

I feel slightly more respect for those who destroy my quality of life and say "because fuck you, bilby, I wanna get rich and you're in my way", than I do for those who destroy my quality of life and say "because were the good guys, doing this because it's virtuous and nice, and you should thank us for it".

That the latter group sincerely believes that they are doing good, and have zero clue that they are badly mistaken, does not make me feel one iota better.

This does make me think of a response to people with the anti-windmill signs in some Lake side counties in Ohio. You never see them put a sign for a new nuclear plant in their county.

They should.

I would.

 

[TSwizzle]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/20/world/carbon-capture-storage-climate-iceland-intl-cmd/index.html

A solution to climate change, giant fans and air filters.

A "solution" to climate change? WTF. The earth's climate is not and never has been static, it has cycles and fluctuations. It really is bizarre that the religious zealots think they can stop the earth's climate from changing. Particularly with nonsense like this.



A rapture like cult.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I feel slightly more respect for those who destroy my quality of life and say "because fuck you, bilby, I wanna get rich and you're in my way", than I do for those who destroy my quality of life and say "because were the good guys, doing this because it's virtuous and nice, and you should thank us for it".

That the latter group sincerely believes that they are doing good, and have zero clue that they are badly mistaken, does not make me feel one iota better.

This does make me think of a response to people with the anti-windmill signs in some Lake side counties in Ohio. You never see them put a sign for a new nuclear plant in their county.

They should.

I would.

I bet they are pro-nuclear, but just in someone else’s backyard.

Which I guess means they are actually anti-energy production in their county. Probably should turn off the lights.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The earth's climate is not and never has been static, it has cycles and fluctuations.

Why do you believe this?

 

[skepticalbip]

The earth's climate is not and never has been static, it has cycles and fluctuations.

Why do you believe this?

Maybe he has seen a presentation of climate history. There has been a great deal of variation over the last billions of years but here's a record of the last 65 million years...



We are currently in the temperature range that chart lists as a coolhouse range.

ETA:
You may enjoy this NOVA short video on Earth's climate over the last 500 million years...
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/earths-climate-change-500-million-years-icehouse-hothouse/

 

[Shadowy Man]

The earth's climate is not and never has been static, it has cycles and fluctuations.

Why do you believe this?

Maybe he has seen a presentation of climate history. There has been a great deal of variation over the last billions of years but here's a record of the last 65 million years...

View attachment 35752

We are currently in the temperature range that chart lists as a coolhouse range.

ETA:
You may enjoy this NOVA short video on Earth's climate over the last 500 million years...
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/earths-climate-change-500-million-years-icehouse-hothouse/

Sure. I just always wonder how some people decide which things climate scientists say they choose to believe and which things climate scientists say they choose not to believe.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/20/world/carbon-capture-storage-climate-iceland-intl-cmd/index.html

A solution to climate change, giant fans and air filters.

A "solution" to climate change? WTF. The earth's climate is not and never has been static, it has cycles and fluctuations. It really is bizarre that the religious zealots think they can stop the earth's climate from changing. Particularly with nonsense like this.



A rapture like cult.

When we cause it we can change it.

Note that natural doesn't mean acceptable. The hottest Earth has been left most of the world basically uninhabitable (basically zero fossils), the coldest was even worse.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Maybe he has seen a presentation of climate history. There has been a great deal of variation over the last billions of years but here's a record of the last 65 million years...

View attachment 35752

We are currently in the temperature range that chart lists as a coolhouse range.

ETA:
You may enjoy this NOVA short video on Earth's climate over the last 500 million years...
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/earths-climate-change-500-million-years-icehouse-hothouse/

Sure. I just always wonder how some people decide which things climate scientists say they choose to believe and which things climate scientists say they choose not to believe. [emoji848]

Your question seemed to have an obvious context. I guess it wasn’t as obvious for some others.

 

[Swammerdami]

Maybe he has seen a presentation of climate history. There has been a great deal of variation over the last billions of years but here's a record of the last 65 million years...

We are currently in the temperature range that chart lists as a coolhouse range.

Yes, Earth's climate has seen HUGE fluctuations, with the precise causes often unclear. Some of those climate changes occurred very rapidly. The Sun's surface has never been warmer than it is in this Period, yet the Earth's surface has been far warmer in the past.

Of course no TFTer would be so confused, but some climate deniers use those ancient fluctuations to support their agenda of climate change denial!

In fact those variations present an ominous picture and support the "alarmist" viewpoint. Earth's climate has changed dramatically in the past due to seemingly minor forcings. The present human-caused forcings are large and are likely to plunge the climate into a wholly new long-term trajectory. Projections are usually presented for the next century, but there is no guarantee whatsoever — indeed many experts consider it quite unlikely — that Pleistocene conditions will resume if/when humans cease their meddling with climate.

 

[steve_bank]

The known periodic climate variations have been ruled out.

Areas in the mid east were green in biblical times. The Sahara has wet periods.

 

[steve_bank]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/20/world/carbon-capture-storage-climate-iceland-intl-cmd/index.html

A solution to climate change, giant fans and air filters.

A "solution" to climate change? WTF. The earth's climate is not and never has been static, it has cycles and fluctuations. It really is bizarre that the religious zealots think they can stop the earth's climate from changing. Particularly with nonsense like this.



A rapture like cult.

Sarcasm. however the issue is no climate change iself it is the rapifity of chnage. We are seeing it in real time. The correlation is clear, the current chnages trace back ro the beinnings of industrialization.


So, you are saying our current situation with climate change is no big deal, and why worry about it? Increase ccoal usage without concerns?

Again a Tucker Carlson kind of position. Climate change is a leftist fabrication.

 

[rousseau]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/20/world/carbon-capture-storage-climate-iceland-intl-cmd/index.html

A solution to climate change, giant fans and air filters.

A "solution" to climate change? WTF. The earth's climate is not and never has been static, it has cycles and fluctuations. It really is bizarre that the religious zealots think they can stop the earth's climate from changing. Particularly with nonsense like this.



A rapture like cult.

Sarcasm. however the issue is no climate change iself it is the rapifity of chnage. We are seeing it in real time. The correlation is clear, the current chnages trace back ro the beinnings of industrialization.


So, you are saying our current situation with climate change is no big deal, and why worry about it? Increase ccoal usage without concerns?

Again a Tucker Carlson kind of position. Climate change is a leftist fabrication.

I hate to say it, but on some level he isn't actually that wrong. Industrialization can be traced back to the agricultural revolution, and the agricultural revolution can be traced back to the beginning of the holocene (after the last ice age). On some level it was climactic conditions that allowed us to flourish and produce man made changes to the biosphere. By the time we even had the tools to understand climate, the damage was already largely done.

Where TSwizzle's logic fails is that it still makes sense to try to mitigate our own impact on climate. Just because we aren't wholly the cause, doesn't mean we should ignore imminent danger. Let's not jump out of the way of the car barrelling toward us?

 

[TSwizzle]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/20/world/carbon-capture-storage-climate-iceland-intl-cmd/index.html

A solution to climate change, giant fans and air filters.

A "solution" to climate change? WTF. The earth's climate is not and never has been static, it has cycles and fluctuations. It really is bizarre that the religious zealots think they can stop the earth's climate from changing. Particularly with nonsense like this.



A rapture like cult.

Sarcasm.

I am not being sarcastic. The climate apocalypse really is a rapture like cult.

however the issue is no climate change iself it is the rapifity of chnage. We are seeing it in real time. The correlation is clear, the current chnages trace back ro the beinnings of industrialization.

You are seeing a very minor change, an imperceptible increase in temperature here and there, an imperceptible rise in sea levels that all look to be within natural variation. What you read in the likes of The Gruaniad (perhaps, maybe elsewhere) is nothing but scaremongering propaganda.

So, you are saying our current situation with climate change is no big deal, and why worry about it?

Climate change occurs naturally no matter what. Putting in a few bicycle lanes along Santa Monica Blvd does nothing for the climate but screws up traffic. It's idiotic virtue signaling.

Again a Tucker Carlson kind of position. Climate change is a leftist fabrication.

Steve, you can piss right off with that bullshit. I have no time for it.

 

[TSwizzle]

Where TSwizzle's logic fails is that it still makes sense to try to mitigate our own impact on climate. Just because we aren't wholly the cause, doesn't mean we should ignore imminent danger. Let's not jump out of the way of the car barrelling toward us?

"our own impact" on the climate I believe to be negligible either way. This obsession with "carbon" pollution also needs to stop. And what "imminent danger" are you on about? I've been hearing about the coming catastrophes for decades and none have materialized. Every apocalyptic prediction has been spectacularly wrong. Monbiot: "our children are not going to know what snow is in a few years." What utter nonsense.

 

[skepticalbip]

Maybe he has seen a presentation of climate history. There has been a great deal of variation over the last billions of years but here's a record of the last 65 million years...

View attachment 35752

We are currently in the temperature range that chart lists as a coolhouse range.

ETA:
You may enjoy this NOVA short video on Earth's climate over the last 500 million years...
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/earths-climate-change-500-million-years-icehouse-hothouse/

Sure. I just always wonder how some people decide which things climate scientists say they choose to believe and which things climate scientists say they choose not to believe. ������

It looks like in his case the divide is that he accepts palaeoclimatological findings and questions predictive climatology models. Those are very different studies using a very different tool kits. Past climates can be determined without knowing or understanding the drivers of the climate. Diatoms in Ocean floor cores and limestone can tell us ocean temperature because different species of diatoms live in different temperature water. The cyclic nature of climate that was found was a mystery because they didn't know the drivers.. that is until Milankovitch related the cycles to the eccentricity and precession of the Earth's orbit and the changing axial obliquity.

Predictive modeling is much more tricky because we aren't simply reading a fossil record and because there are apparently several drivers and none of them or their interdependence are known precisely. That is why there are something like twenty different models and their predictions don't agree. So what we get is similar to the predictions of several of our hurricane tracking models where short term they sorta agree (because they all start at a known 'now') but long term they diverge more and more.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Maybe he has seen a presentation of climate history. There has been a great deal of variation over the last billions of years but here's a record of the last 65 million years...

View attachment 35752

We are currently in the temperature range that chart lists as a coolhouse range.

ETA:
You may enjoy this NOVA short video on Earth's climate over the last 500 million years...
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/earths-climate-change-500-million-years-icehouse-hothouse/

Sure. I just always wonder how some people decide which things climate scientists say they choose to believe and which things climate scientists say they choose not to believe. ������

It looks like in this case the divide is that he accepts palaeoclimatological findings and questions predictive climatology models. Those are very different studies using a very different tool kits. Past climates can be determined without knowing or understanding the drivers of the climate. Diatoms in Ocean floor cores and limestone can tell us ocean temperature because different species of diatoms live in different temperature water. The cyclic nature of climate that was found was a mystery because they didn't know the drivers.. that is until Milankovitch related the cycles to the eccentricity and precession of the Earth's orbit and the changing axial obliquity.

Predictive modeling is much more tricky because there are apparently several drivers and none of them or their interdependence are known precisely. That is why there are something like twenty different models and their predictions don't agree. So what we get is similar to the predictions of several of our hurricane tracking models where short term they sorta agree but long term they diverge more and more.

Sure, but the responses aren’t like what you are saying, which sounds like a reasonable approach to the subject. It’s more like: the palaeoclimatological findings are correct and result from careful scientific analysis, while the predictive climatology results are driven by a politically ideological group of scientists belonging to a cult of alarmists taking government money to produce fraudulent predictions in order to bring down the fossil fuel industry and turn humanity into mindless sheep.

 

[skepticalbip]

It looks like in this case the divide is that he accepts palaeoclimatological findings and questions predictive climatology models. Those are very different studies using a very different tool kits. Past climates can be determined without knowing or understanding the drivers of the climate. Diatoms in Ocean floor cores and limestone can tell us ocean temperature because different species of diatoms live in different temperature water. The cyclic nature of climate that was found was a mystery because they didn't know the drivers.. that is until Milankovitch related the cycles to the eccentricity and precession of the Earth's orbit and the changing axial obliquity.

Predictive modeling is much more tricky because there are apparently several drivers and none of them or their interdependence are known precisely. That is why there are something like twenty different models and their predictions don't agree. So what we get is similar to the predictions of several of our hurricane tracking models where short term they sorta agree but long term they diverge more and more.

Sure, but the responses aren’t like what you are saying, which sounds like a reasonable approach to the subject. It’s more like: the palaeoclimatological findings are correct and result from careful scientific analysis, while the predictive climatology results are driven by a politically ideological group of scientists belonging to a cult of alarmists taking government money to produce fraudulent predictions in order to bring down the fossil fuel industry and turn humanity into mindless sheep.

There are two very different things here.
1. There is a serious scientific study of climate that is predicting rising temperatures.
2. There is a hell of a lot of political hyperbolic fearmongering. A good example Al Gores' "An Inconvenient Truth" movie according to which we should now have no polar bears and lower parts of New York city should already be underwater.

 

[Shadowy Man]

It looks like in this case the divide is that he accepts palaeoclimatological findings and questions predictive climatology models. Those are very different studies using a very different tool kits. Past climates can be determined without knowing or understanding the drivers of the climate. Diatoms in Ocean floor cores and limestone can tell us ocean temperature because different species of diatoms live in different temperature water. The cyclic nature of climate that was found was a mystery because they didn't know the drivers.. that is until Milankovitch related the cycles to the eccentricity and precession of the Earth's orbit and the changing axial obliquity.

Predictive modeling is much more tricky because there are apparently several drivers and none of them or their interdependence are known precisely. That is why there are something like twenty different models and their predictions don't agree. So what we get is similar to the predictions of several of our hurricane tracking models where short term they sorta agree but long term they diverge more and more.

Sure, but the responses aren’t like what you are saying, which sounds like a reasonable approach to the subject. It’s more like: the palaeoclimatological findings are correct and result from careful scientific analysis, while the predictive climatology results are driven by a politically ideological group of scientists belonging to a cult of alarmists taking government money to produce fraudulent predictions in order to bring down the fossil fuel industry and turn humanity into mindless sheep.

There are two very different things here.
1. There is a serious scientific study of climate that is predicting rising temperatures.
2. There is a hell of a lot of political hyperbolic fearmongering. A good example Al Gores' "An Inconvenient Truth" movie according to which we should now have no polar bears and lower parts of New York city should already be underwater.

I agree... And the extreme alarmists can damage the overall message that anthropogenic climate change is real and poses a significant danger to the current lifestyle of humanity in the long term. Unfortunately, the issue has become so politicized that rational, reasonable discussion leading to realizable policy to mitigate the impact cannot happen anymore.

What we are seeing is similar to the COVID pandemic. In the beginning, there was a lot of crazy talk by politicians that prevented us from being able to take on the challenge of dealing with the virus in a way that mitigated its impact. Denial of the problem, assertions that it will simply go away, calling it a hoax, etc. The climate crisis is just much more slow moving. I, personally, believe that we will never implement the appropriate response (primarily because it would have had to have been implemented already) and that humanity will have to simply adapt to a different climate and its impacts, but that will inevitably result in a lot of political crises and instability around the world.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It looks like in this case the divide is that he accepts palaeoclimatological findings and questions predictive climatology models. Those are very different studies using a very different tool kits. Past climates can be determined without knowing or understanding the drivers of the climate. Diatoms in Ocean floor cores and limestone can tell us ocean temperature because different species of diatoms live in different temperature water. The cyclic nature of climate that was found was a mystery because they didn't know the drivers.. that is until Milankovitch related the cycles to the eccentricity and precession of the Earth's orbit and the changing axial obliquity.

Predictive modeling is much more tricky because there are apparently several drivers and none of them or their interdependence are known precisely. That is why there are something like twenty different models and their predictions don't agree. So what we get is similar to the predictions of several of our hurricane tracking models where short term they sorta agree but long term they diverge more and more.

Sure, but the responses aren’t like what you are saying, which sounds like a reasonable approach to the subject. It’s more like: the palaeoclimatological findings are correct and result from careful scientific analysis, while the predictive climatology results are driven by a politically ideological group of scientists belonging to a cult of alarmists taking government money to produce fraudulent predictions in order to bring down the fossil fuel industry and turn humanity into mindless sheep.

There are two very different things here.
1. There is a serious scientific study of climate that is predicting rising temperatures.
2. There is a hell of a lot of political hyperbolic fearmongering. A good example Al Gores' "An Inconvenient Truth" movie according to which we should now have no polar bears and lower parts of New York city should already be underwater.

Well, heck if there isn't a bit of drama added, people won't give a damn... take Covid-19 for instance. It ain't killing tens of millions, therefore, meh.

My problem with anti-climate change folk is they always assume the predictions are wrong... but always in their favor. If the fresh water dump from Greenland did screw with the Gulf Stream, the consequences could be devastating. There are thresholds out there we don't know of. Greenland all melting might not make the gulfstream budge, but it could. And we can't undo that. Currently the Earth is warming... and even if we stop excess emissions of CO2, it is going to continue to warm as we aren't even at the static point where the CO2 level is today, and the impact on the ocean and oceanic ecology is again another one of those thresholds.