Suppose Climate Change is real, but we can’t stop it (1 Viewer)

[samiam5211]

At some point even the Greatas of the world may have to admit that climate change is not something we can prevent. Whether or not it is human caused, there will be a point if no return.

Where is the point where humanity is better served by focusing resources on adaptation rather than prevention?

There is likely much overlap between prevention and adaptation.

One example of this might be the activists’ push against fossil fuels...

Maybe we should be trying use as much solar power as possible now to save fossil fuels for a time when we have a period of glaciation in an area where humans live today? Maybe we will need that oil and gas should there be a time when the Midwest is below freezing five months a year. This is not an uncommon situation in Earth’s relatively recent history.

I do believe that the climate is changing and that we will fail to stop it, and we are the ancestors of people who will have to grow their food in different regions from us and get their energy from different places.

The sooner humanity begins to diversify these necessities the better.

 

[Sendai]

From the NOAA:

Today's global warming is happening at a much faster rate today than it did in the warm periods between ice ages over the last million years. The transition from the last ice age to the current interglacial period is estimated to have spanned 5,000 years. Humans could witness the same magnitude of global warming within a span of about 110 years. In other words, if our world warms by as much as 7°F (4.1°C) from 1990 to 2100, as some climate models project could happen, then that warming rate is about 45 times faster than the warming Earth experienced when it emerged from the last ice age.

In graphic form, also from the NOAA:

That’s from the current warming period. The last 12,000 years. Not a comparison to previous periods like the Eemian. The glaciation warming cycles have been going on for at least 2.5 million years. Maybe longer.

 

[RobF]

That’s from the current warming period. The last 12,000 years. Not a comparison to previous periods likevthevEemian.

He can't even read and understand the post he's replying to, let alone the links he posts himself but he expects everyone to just accept his word for it that he's done loads of research and is an expert.

What a joke.

 

[Dragon]

As the world slid into and out of the last ice age, the general cooling and warming trends were punctuated by abrupt changes. Climate shifts up to half as large as the entire difference between ice age and modern conditions occurred over hemispheric or broader regions in mere years to decades. Such abrupt changes have been absent during the few key millennia when agriculture and industry have arisen. The speed, size, and extent of these abrupt changes required a reappraisal of climate stability.

Ice core analysis show that changes can happen within a few years, rather then centuries as SendAI claim

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-29226-8?

 

[MT15]

That’s from the current warming period. The last 12,000 years. Not a comparison to previous periods likevthevEemian. The glaciation warming cycles have been going on for at least 2.5 million years. Maybe longer.

No it clearly says over the last MILLION years in the text. For someone who claims to read a lot, you sure don’t demonstrate a firm grasp on reading comprehension.

And you didn’t provide any specifics. Basically your response when asked how you have “studied” this was “trust me, bro”.

I will assume you are “researching” by watching YouTube videos.

 

[Sendai]

Instead of posting a long series of links - maybe write what you believe that they support - with quotes from the linked articles.

Instead you just post links and an insult

What insult?

 

[MT15]

What insult?

Wow, always deflecting.

At least point us to the YouTube videos from climate deniers that you used as “research”.

 

[Sendai]

Instead of posting a long series of links - maybe write what you believe that they support - with quotes from the linked articles.

Instead you just post links and an insult

What insult?

No it clearly says over the last MILLION years in the text. For someone who claims to read a lot, you sure don’t demonstrate a firm grasp on reading comprehension.

And you didn’t provide any specifics. Basically your response when asked how you have “studied” this was “trust me, bro”.

I will assume you are “researching” by watching YouTube videos.

the chart covers 12,000 years. The period from the end of the ice age. Look at the numbers at the top. 10,000(ya) means 10,000 years ago. There is no comparison to previous warming periods.

 

[MT15]

What insult?

the chart covers 12,000 years. The period from the end of the ice age. Look at the numbers at the top. 10,000(ya) means 10,000 years ago. There is no comparison to previous warming periods.

But THE TEXT says over the past million years. It doesn’t matter what axis they chose for the chart. Charts are only illustrations. They don’t trump the text.

Either you can read or you cannot. Circumstances point to not.

Give us links to the YouTube videos you are using as “research”.

 

[Sendai]

But THE TEXT says over the past million years. It doesn’t matter what axis they chose for the chart. Charts are only illustrations. They don’t trump the text.

Either you can read or you cannot. Circumstances point to not.

Give us links to the YouTube videos you are using as “research”.

Then it should show the comparison among the previous warming periods. Without that comparison it’s a baseless claim.

Glad You Asked: Ice Ages – What are they and what causes them? - Utah Geological Survey

An ice age is a long interval of time (millions to tens of millions of years) when global temperatures are relatively cold and large areas of the Earth are covered by continental ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Within an ice age are multiple shorter-term periods of warmer temperatures when...

geology.utah.gov

This study suggests otherwise. The charts show higher temps than current.

And it’s doubtful NOAA have the resources to make that comparison.

 

[MT15]

Then it should show the comparison among the previous warming periods. Without that comparison it’s a baseless claim.

Take it up with NOAA. Show us your sources, speaking of baseless claims.

 

[MT15]

Here are the sources on the NOAA page.

IPCC (2007): Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp.

IPCC Frequently Asked Question 6.2 (2007): "Is the Current Climate Change Unusual Compared to Earlier Changes in Earth's History?" Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp.

Marcott, S.A., Shakun, J.D., Clark, P.U., Mix, A.C. (2013). A reconstruction of regional and global temperature for the past 11,300 years. 339(6124), 1198-1201.

 

[Sendai]

Take it up with NOAA. Show us your sources, speaking of baseless claims.

Take it up with NOAA. Show us your sources, speaking of baseless claims.

I did

Glad You Asked: Ice Ages – What are they and what causes them? - Utah Geological Survey

An ice age is a long interval of time (millions to tens of millions of years) when global temperatures are relatively cold and large areas of the Earth are covered by continental ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Within an ice age are multiple shorter-term periods of warmer temperatures when...

geology.utah.gov

The charts actually show a wide range of warming periods and indicate otherwise to the NOAA claims that temp spikes are higher than previous warming periods.

 

[MT15]

Oh look what is at the very tip-top of that article? Bolding is mine.

This article is about ice ages and what causes them, but it does not address the significant differences between pre- and post-Industrial Revolution climate change. A wealth of information is available from numerous scientific organizations with expertise in climate science. For those wishing to learn more, here are a few examples:

Climate Literacy & Energy Awareness Network,
https://cleanet.org/index.html
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
https://www.ipcc.ch
National Academy of Sciences,
https://thesciencebehindit.org/how-is-earths-climate-changing/
National Climate Assessment,
https://nca2014.globalchange.gov
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
https://www.noaa.gov/climate
National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/,
https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/, and
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

[Sendai]

Here are the sources on the NOAA page.

IPCC (2007): Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp.

IPCC Frequently Asked Question 6.2 (2007): "Is the Current Climate Change Unusual Compared to Earlier Changes in Earth's History?" Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp.

Marcott, S.A., Shakun, J.D., Clark, P.U., Mix, A.C. (2013). A reconstruction of regional and global temperature for the past 11,300 years. 339(6124), 1198-1201.

This is what results from the link

“A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years”

 

[MT15]

This is what results from the link

“A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years”

That is one. Look at the others why don’t you?

Meanwhile your article doesn’t address climate change post Industrial Revolution and says so right up front. It points to several sources - maybe you should read those?

 

[MT15]

Try the NASA link from your own cited resource, bolding in the source material.

“It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s climate. This is based on over a century of scientific evidence forming the structural backbone of today's civilization.

NASA Global Climate Change presents the state of scientific knowledge about climate change while highlighting the role NASA plays in better understanding our home planet. This effort includes citing multiple peer-reviewed studies from research groups across the world,1 illustrating the accuracy and consensus of research results (in this case, the scientific consensus on climate change) consistent with NASA’s scientific research portfolio.

With that said, multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.”

And it goes on to list 18 scientific associations that have come to the same conclusion, which is the opposite of what you are saying.

 

[MT15]

So your own source STARTS out by saying there are significant differences in climate change pre- and post-Industrial Revolution.

Did you just skip over that? Did you not understand it? What gives?

 

[Sendai]

That is one. Look at the others why don’t you?

Meanwhile your article doesn’t address climate change post Industrial Revolution and says so right up front. It points to several sources - maybe you should read those?

It compares previous warming periods that have higher temps without a post industrial period.