Global warming isn't doing too well these days

I guess that wrote:

Conundrum wrote:

On record

I guess that geology isn't actual science like "climatology."

Number 5

Make a joke of it.

Alfred Wegener wrote:

There was a scientific consensus that the continents didn't move just 100 years ago. This dude named Alfred Wegener developed the theory of continental drift. He was viewed as a crackpot. But 30 years after his death, his theory gained traction--and now it is the "consensus." Umm, ever hear of Plate Tectonics?

Ironically, he dropped dead of a heart attack while trekking across Greenland in 1930, researching his theory. He was buried where he dropped. It is believed is body is now covered with over 1000 feet of ice. Shrinking ice cap, my eye.

Whenever I hear the y wrote:

Whenever I hear the word science I always think about luminiferous aether.

Number 4

How about the time science was wrong?

Actually, Actually wrote:

what are you talking about? wrote:

https://realclimatescience.com/climate-scientists-rewriting-the-past/

If you’d read the link I provided, you’d see 1) Climatology didn’t exist in the 70s. It was largely paleontologists who were studying previous ice ages that “predicted” the next one. 2) The majority of the scientific community was talking about global warming from increasing c02 levels as early as the 1950s. 3) The lay media then (National Geographic included) sold a coming ice age in conflict with what most scientists at the time thought. 4) The lay media has been perpetuating this myth since the 90s; on the right because their heads are in the sand, like yours and in the main stream because it sort of makes a cute story about how much smarter everyone is now.

As I stated a few posts back. It never happened.

Number 3

Something like the atmosphere was finite or climatology didn't exist....myth of the lay media.....talking about C02 since 50s.....used to say ice age.....blah, blah blah.

Conundrum wrote:

Conundrum wrote:

The last 5 years have been the hottest for the earth on record.

The last 5 years have been the hottest for the earth on record.

I thought I needed to state that twice.

Deniers will state

(1) it's not true

(2) so what, temperatures fluctuate

(3) something like well the atmosphere is finite blah blah blah

(4) how about that time science was wrong.

Deniers, sometimes it's easier just to accept the truth.

Or (5) just make a joke of it.

Or, (6) just ignore it.

Let me repeat, the last 5 years have been the hottest for the earth on record.

It's always one of these 6

There is no scientist who "understands" the climate. Scientists feed the data into computer models and relay their findings to us. How accurate are the computer models? Even if they are only 3-5% off per year, the error factor will compound quickly over time, leaving us to constantly adjust the model to reflect the reality that we are seeing. Kind of like this 2020 prediction of the disappearance of the glaciers. They should leave the signs up.

My local forecast is worthless past 5 days, so there are obvious limits to what scientists can tell us about the weather. You may believe that global warming occurs on a broader scale than local weather, and that we can see still see the overall trend, but the reality is that the climate of the earth is far more complex than any human can comprehend. The question is whether or not you believe the mathematical models that scientists have created are accurate and whether or not they have captured all of the relevant variables. There is almost certainly a generous margin of error and factors that the scientists have not considered.

The climate has always been changing, with or without human intervention, and the climate always will change with or without human intervention. Cities have been destroyed by natural disasters, people have had to move, and people have had to adapt to these changes. The bottom line is that if we cannot adapt to changes in our environment, we die. It's that simple.

Number 6

That's when you cherry pick some fact which may or may not be true, you in clear Dunning Kruger mode spend time explaining it as though that explains the whole issue of climate change and in doing so you don't realize the limits of your knowledge.

Explain the last 5 years being the hottest on record.

There hasn't been a good climate change discussion in a while. Including this one... :-)

It is possible to be well-educated and experienced in the natural sciences and remain skeptical - to a degree - about the nature of causation (i.e., the A in AGW).

Climate is certainly changing, and is warming, on average, over the period of instrumented record (~ 1850 onward), and earlier (since the Little Ice Age), with ups and downs along the way, including some extended periods of mainly declining temperatures (1875-1910ish, 1940 to 1975ish) and a more recent period of slower increase (since 1997). And if you want to cherry pick data, you can also call out the last three years as a period of declining temperatures (even though the last 5 are the warmest in the instrumented record).

The important debate / discussion isn't over the question of whether climate is changing (any idiot who claims otherwise is, well, an idiot), rather the important questions are:

1. to what degree does human activity drive changes in climate (out of all factors that influence climate)

2. how difficult will it be for future humanity to deal with a changed climate

These two questions are independent of each other.

To me, the first question is very difficult to answer (much more difficult than either "side" would like to believe), since climate is a largely chaotic phenomenon with non-linear (and potentially uninterpretable) relationship to its various influencing factors. A theoretically "safe" approach is to believe we (the As) are a significant factor, and to take action to limit our influence. A danger here is in overreacting with unintended negative consequences (for example, building some kind of "space shield" or modify clouds or something in the atmosphere, with unpredictable effects).

The second question is more philosophical, to me. Humans are an adaptive species, and we absorb and respond to major shocks all the time, and find a way to muddle through. There is a lot of "the sky is falling" discussion on this topic. Is it right to expect the sky to fall? Maybe. Worth having a plan that's robust against a falling sky? Probably, whether or not we act to limit anthropogenic influence (which I think we will never do, the issue is too charged and polarized).

All this from a guy who does not own a car because he doesn't think the world needs more cars...

Conundrum wrote:

Number 6

That's when you cherry pick some fact which may or may not be true, you in clear Dunning Kruger mode spend time explaining it as though that explains the whole issue of climate change and in doing so you don't realize the limits of your knowledge.

Explain the last 5 years being the hottest on record.

In the grand scheme of things, what does 5 years of the hottest temperatures on record show? On record "since when", for starters.

It means about as much to me as 5 hot days means to the rest of the summer.

Hmmmmmmmmm wrote:

This, honestly, is just insanely ignorant and dangerous to even suggest. I work in Glacier National Park and have to entertain uneducated asssholes like you all day, but in reality, our glaciers are melting as a direct result of warming global temperatures. We have 26 named glaciers in Glacier National Park, and each and every one has recorded reduction in mass and volume for each of the last 11 years. Grow up, get your head out of the ground, and spread misinformation in your own part of the world - we're having enough trouble with it here.

why did you take down the signs then bro

Is your point that we should keep sending massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere because it doesn't affect our environment?

Line at the Bottom wrote:

Conundrum wrote:

Number 6

That's when you cherry pick some fact which may or may not be true, you in clear Dunning Kruger mode spend time explaining it as though that explains the whole issue of climate change and in doing so you don't realize the limits of your knowledge.

Explain the last 5 years being the hottest on record.

In the grand scheme of things, what does 5 years of the hottest temperatures on record show? On record "since when", for starters.

It means about as much to me as 5 hot days means to the rest of the summer.

Are you even open to the possibility that you might be wrong?

How many years would it take to mean something to you?

If you hold a stance no matter what the evidence, that doesn't make you right.

For the people saying that Earth's temperature has been hotter in the past, and is subject to fluctuation, blah blah blah, you are completely missing the point. The alarming part is the shortened timescale in which the human inflicted changes are occurring. The rate of warming in the last 100 years, (0.8 degree increase or so) has cancelled out the last 6000 years of cooling that occurred previously. Similarly, take a look at atmospheric CO2 levels over the last 800 000 years, and how we have doubled it in the last 100 years or so.

Anyone mentioning how it was cooler this summer where they live is a complete idiot. Watching conspiracy theorists berating people for being sheep and blindly following the "powers that be" while poking their eyes out avoiding the surplus of evidence is hilarious.

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Where is the upside in being skeptical?

Or where is the down side in doing our best to preserve the environment?

And where is the down side for doing more to keep the environmental status quo... even if we, as humans, do not have 100% control of all factors?

Thanks in advance.

I’m on the fence about environmental issues. Maybe done knowledgeable people can help me with my concerns.

Is that black smoke coming out of trucks harmful to the environment?

Is our lakes and rivers not naturally drinkable ok?

Is the chemicals they use to grow food and feed animals harmful?

Flounder wrote:

We are coming out of an ice age.

We are in an ice age. Specifically, an inter-glacial period.

The changes in average temperature now are on the scale of decades, whereas they usually occur over thousands of years - 2 orders of magnitude faster than normal.

So yeah....we're fucking with the environment bigly

Wondering???? wrote:Where is the upside in being skeptical?

Or where is the down side in doing our best to preserve the environment?.

Is that directed at me?

Those two things are not mutually exclusive. It's possible to question the allocation of causation for climate change AND be very interested in protecting the environment. At least in my brain it is. That said, one doesn't need to invoke the spectre of AGW to find a good reason to minimize pollution and other environmental harm.

FelonDJT wrote:

So yeah....we're fucking with the environment bigly

There is no way you can possibly know that. You would need an alternate universe devoid of humans to compare.

This could be a naturally occuring part of Earth's cooling that we just have never recorded or experienced before.

Humans do not have to be responsible for everything that happens. And when you draft policy and start taxing and soliciting funds it gets really messy determining what is science and what is profit.

why did you take down the signs then bro wrote:

Hmmmmmmmmm wrote:

This, honestly, is just insanely ignorant and dangerous to even suggest. I work in Glacier National Park and have to entertain uneducated asssholes like you all day, but in reality, our glaciers are melting as a direct result of warming global temperatures. We have 26 named glaciers in Glacier National Park, and each and every one has recorded reduction in mass and volume for each of the last 11 years. Grow up, get your head out of the ground, and spread misinformation in your own part of the world - we're having enough trouble with it here.

why did you take down the signs then bro

Most of my colleagues in the park were pretty shocked to hear of/see this article, as the majority of NPS staff working in Glacier had no idea that this sign existed. There is a general consensus among park scientists and glaciologists that the 26 named glaciers within park borders will melt to >2% of existing volumes by 2040. I am not entirely certain where this "2020" figure came from.

Getting technical with the numbers is irrelevant, though. Our glaciers are melting, our planet is warming and our plant and animal species across the world are moving toward and arriving at extinction at an unprecedented rate. Tearing apart verbiage from relevant scientists and experts to make your unfounded beliefs seem less outlandish is counterproductive, to say the least.

You cant say that wrote:

FelonDJT wrote:

So yeah....we're fucking with the environment bigly

There is no way you can possibly know that. You would need an alternate universe devoid of humans to compare.

This could be a naturally occuring part of Earth's cooling that we just have never recorded or experienced before.

Humans do not have to be responsible for everything that happens. And when you draft policy and start taxing and soliciting funds it gets really messy determining what is science and what is profit.

This is just plain wrong, though. We do have data to compare current climate change to. Data and evidence surrounding the rate of extinction of animal and plant species, in addition to the rate of change in the warming of our planet in the last handful of years, is absolutely unprecedented and is only continuing to hasten. There is no coincidence that this "up-cycle" of climate trend data, reflecting a warming of the Earth at an alarmingly rapid pace, is occurring in conjunction with massive emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere as a result of human activity on our planet. Our current rates of climate change across our planet are absolutely "unnatural", and anyone with a pair of eyes can find data to reinforce that.