Global Warming, History of Earth's Temperature

[Tom.G]

Was the opening (clearly incorrect) statement intended to be provocative? It provoked me to respond I suppose.

Not intentionaly incorrect; provocative, yes. I should have included the graph as a visual in the OP. I have now done so - and also entered it here for ease of reference.

Please note the colored bar across the top edge indicating "Climate state" and the time span is 490 Million years

I agree with the rest of your post in that climate warming is real and is a largely ignored problem.

Here is a greatly enlarged view of the lower right side where the recent warming can be seen. The plot area covers from 13°C down° to 7°C.

At this scale, the 11,700 year long Holocene is about the width if the right-side border of the graph, less than the width of the plot line.
. . . . . . . . 13°C

Cheers,
Tom

 

[weirdoguy]

I hate when medical and climate studies are put at the same level as other purely mathematical studies

And don't you hate when people who are not knowledgable in both medical and climate studies act like they are, based on one misunderstood post they read? What I had noticed throughout the years on PF is that a lot of people here do not share the "physics standards" when it comes to more "social" sciences. If you don't know something, ask a question. Just because some things seem simpler, doesn't mean you can act like you know things when you don't.

 

[jack action]

If you don't know something, ask a question.

But what if you don't trust the people who claim to be knowledgeable in a field especially when you cannot even evaluate whether they are or not?

Multiple people are experts on the Bible or the Coran. I'm not. Lots of people are following them more or less blindly. They say a lot of stuff I doubt about, or even completely disagree with. They would probably say: "If you don't know something, ask a question." And I'm sure they will always have an answer. Like all other experts in their fields. I still have no intention of going through these books to form my opinions. I hear those experts and I form my opinion based on the trust I give them, not on what they say. I'm not going to waste my time trying to win arguments with them either. Being a scientist doesn't exempt you from earning other people's trust.

Trust is earned. If people do not want to listen to you, it doesn't matter how knowledgeable you are (or you think you are). And if someone doesn't trust you, it is as much your responsibility as theirs to [re]establish the communication, probably even more. This is the biggest challenge for scientists right now.

 

[Bandersnatch]

Trust is earned.

Imagine you do some work, and arrive at a result that you then present to another person. That person says they don't trust you just saying so. Alright, fair enough. So then you show them all the data you had collected, you write down in meticulous detail all the methods and assumptions used, and justifications for those methods and assumptions. You introduce them to related work other people have done, and you present them with reviews of your work indicating that you haven't made any mistakes.
And then they tell you they don't understand any of that, so they still don't trust you.
Alright then, you provide a clear pathway to learning each step of the process, constructed so that it's accessible to almost anyone willing to commit their time, and allowing to check the veracity of your work to any depth they want to dig down to.
And they still say: No! YOU have to earn MY trust. I'm not doing any work.

How. How do these scientists are supposed to earn your trust, other than what they've been doing all along? Other than following the scientific method, committing to transparency, accessibility, and peer review? What more do you need?

I've seen you making these comments, professing distrust in science, for years now. You had years to pick up a textbook, attend an online or in-person course, or even just do the basic intellectual work of constructing a heuristic for general ontology to guide you, so that you don't lump beliefs and science in one basket. But you're stuck in your mindset, doing what increasingly looks to me like wallowing in ignorance.

 

[weirdoguy]

How do these scientists are supposed to earn your trust

That one is simple - they should stop discovering things that will force people to change their lifestyles for worse.

These discussions are hard not because the topic is hard (which of course it is) but because people do not share the same standards with different branches of science. E.g. relativity vs. physics of climate. In the meantime, two weeks ago in Warsaw we had a spring in the middle of a winter.

I guess we're veering too much into off-topic, so I'm out

 

[jack action]

What more do you need?

Why is it so important to you that I believe what you believe? That's the question people need to be answered to trust you. It has nothing to do with your reasoning.

Why does a flat-earther think it is so important for me to believe the Earth is flat? He thinks it's flat, I think it's a globe. It really doesn't matter much in any of our daily lives. This is suspicious to me that some people go to so much extent to try to convince me of something so futile in my life. What are they trying to sell me? It is always about money, control, and power.

But then I turn around, and I see one of those globists doing the same thing, but the other way around. Why? Who cares? Why is it so important that everyone sees life exactly as THEY do? What are THEY trying to sell me? Based on experience, it should also be about money, control, and power. It's really not a good look on them either.

From a flat-earther's point of view, assuming they are right, it's clear that they think they are being lied to, such that a small group of malevolent people take control over all of us. They don't hide their true fear. The more globists try to convince them otherwise, the more their fears and doubts grow. Flat-earthers don't want anything from them and yet, they still want to "help", to be their "friend". Why is it so important to them?

From the point of view of globists, assuming they are right, they should only do their things, answer questions if any, and let people do their own things afterward. But their fear is that "people" - whoever might that be - will NOT believe them, despite the hard evidence. This is the equivalent of saying "people" - whoever might that be - are too stupid to understand, too foolish to even make it out alive in this world. Which is litterally the definition of a small group of people trying to take control over all of us. Except, in this scenario, globists think they are benevolent. They want to do good unto others ... for free? Yeaaah! that looks fishy. Flat-earthers are going back to doubting the benevolent part again.

I can assure you that - whatever they say - nobody is questioning science. They don't care. Explaining science is not the answer they are looking for. People are questioning scientists and their values. Because they know they are humans. They even had bad experiences with well-intentioned humans. Showing them how stupid or ignorant they are is not the way to go.

Personnally, I would be more convinced of scientists believing in climate change if I were seeing scientists going Amish and, when asked why, they would answer: "We believe we need to produce less CO₂ and since we understand most of us won't do it, we do more than our part to compensate in the hope it will be enough." THAT is an answer from someone who truly believes the end is near. Scientists who continue doing whatever everyone has been doing for years and only sell some pitch about new technologies that will magically cure everything at no cost, or suggesting that democracy should be indirectly bypassed by forcing elected politicians to follow only whatever scientists say, is not very convincing.

 

[BillTre]

Sounds like BS to me.
Your main question is "why?", yet you choose to ignore the obvious why that motivates many opposed to climate change. That is the the destruction of many important pillars of our ecological world.
I don't know if you can understand that or are too stupid to paraphrase your words.
Arguing "why" doesn't matter for flat earthers and but ignoring the "why" for science is not very convincing for those aware of the consequences. These are in no way hidden motivations.

 

[hutchphd]

I can assure you that - whatever they say - nobody is questioning science. They don't care. Explaining science is not the answer they are looking for.

But the guy who wants to be President (or king or vice President) of flatworld is not really my target audience: It is the uninformed (and uniformed) folks who raise their hands in salute. It is they who will become the acolytes and purveyors of whatever mayhem results.
Let's call them the the "flatterers". Absent the flatterers, there would be no problem with the would-be President being anti-science and I would wish him well (from a distance). We do not have that luxury in most circumstances, so we frequently need to advertise scientific method: hopefully by rational discourse, but truthfully by whatever means are available to us.


.

 

[jack action]

It is the uninformed (and uniformed) folks

Keep referring to them as such and see if you will get their respect and an attentive ear. Also, the statement applies to them as well: they don't care about science, they just want to be reassured.

Your main question is "why?", yet you choose to ignore the obvious why that motivates many opposed to climate change. That is the the destruction of many important pillars of our ecological world.

Everybody wants to make the world a better place. We just have very different views on how to achieve that. Nobody will win by assuming they have the moral high ground.

I don't know if you can understand that or are too stupid to paraphrase your words.

I'm just explaining to you to not call your opponent (which I'm not) ignorant and stupid and here we are.

for those aware of the consequences.

Science can not make you aware of the consequences of climate change. I'll repeat what I said earlier:

To all of this science says "We can't predict the effect of this." There are no Earth models or simulations with little humans going on with their daily lives we can study. Too many variables leading to too many potential outputs. Nothing in history too, this is totally new.

You are aware of "potential" consequences. Ones that are very speculative at best. Always negative ones. We are very careful not to let a hint of hope pass through. Because the people who are not smart enough to understand what we understand might not choose to follow us blindly.

The funny thing is that this last paragraph applies no matter which side you're on.

All I hear is that you are afraid. A sentiment that was felt by many - if not all - over the entire human history. I see survivalists who are also afraid, investing tens of thousands of dollars in equipment, spending their evenings and weekends preparing for such apocalyptic events, and the vast majority of us don't even find them credible, not enough to follow them anyway. The true reason being: Prepare for what exactly? So many possible outcomes. So, why do you think an angry man yelling insults at others and patiently waiting for others to do something before he decides to join them will lead us anywhere?

Sounds like BS to me.

Easy to say. So what is your explanation for people not agreeing with you concerning climate change? What do you think goes through their mind?

 

[Tom.G]

So what is your explanation for people not agreeing with you concerning climate change? What do you think goes through their mind?

I would hazard that at least some of those people have an insecurity that requires them to always be 'Right'. In my experience, those people often are ones that can/will not accept new ideas, be they either new subjects or further information not confirming their current beliefs.

Anyhow, that's my two-cents worth. I'll now retire to watching how this discussion ends up.

Have Fun!
Tom

 

[hutchphd]

Also, the statement applies to them as well: they don't care about science, they just want to be reassured.

So we should tell them the earth is flat and that the Haitians in Springfield Ohio will eat their pets.? (I grew up in Springfield!) . Fatuous lies to reassure people. Potemkin villages of the mind. Good policy.
I too shall retire from this discussion having said all I can say.

 

[Bandersnatch]

Why is it so important to you that I believe what you believe? That's the question people need to be answered to trust you. It has nothing to do with your reasoning.

I don't want you, or anyone else, to believe what I believe. I want us all to inhabit the same reality, so that actionable decisions can be made when problems arise.

 

[jack action]

I want us all to inhabit the same reality, so that actionable decisions can be made when problems arise.

Why do we all have to agree to make the same decisions? The worst decision you can make is to put all your eggs in one basket.

Is there even such a thing as THE solution to a problem? From simple observation, nature doesn't work like this. Diversity rules.

My point is that it is impossible to [scientifically] predict the future of the complex world we live in. How will you pick the right decision for all? Can we even all agree on what outcomes we think will be best for us?

So you did not answer the question, you just went around it, playing with semantics. Let me ask it again with a different wording: Why is it important that I use the same solution as the one you chose? I know you think you are right. Every one of us thinks they are right too. It is ludicrous to think anyone would make consciously a "wrong" decision.

So we should tell them [...]

My point is that you don't have to tell them anything. What is NOT reassuring is that you feel the need to tell them something.

Just imagine how you feel when someone tries to convince you to invest in something that will make you rich. The question you should be asking yourself is: if this person can become rich with this investment, why is it important to them that I become rich myself by doing the same thing? This is how you usually spot a scam. Nobody goes out of their way to help others. And it is surely not help when they are pressuring or forcing them.

Just trying to convince someone of something is already worrisome for them, as it should be. The natural and most appropriate reaction to this is to not let them get into your head and disregard everything they say.

You need to get the trust before saying anything.

 

[phinds]

Why do we all have to agree to make the same decisions?

That is not even REMOTELY what he said. READ WHAT HE SAID.

 

[jack action]

@weirdoguy Why do my comments always make you sad? Are you sad because I think people who don't see things like I do are still good people who want to make the world a better place? Are you sad because I would like everyone to aim for a consensus where everyone is happy about it? And if there is none, let everyone do what they think is best?

Or am I not being clear about the message I'm trying to get across?

 

[phinds]

Well, @jack action I'm not sad, personally, but I do find it offensive that you misrepresent what people say.

 

[hutchphd]

t? And if there is none, let everyone do what they think is best?

By your logic, the sincere advocates of the holocaust (there were, and seemingly always are, many such) are not to be challenged.

Asinine.



/

 

[jack action]

Well, @jack action I'm not sad, personally, but I do find it offensive that you misrepresent what people say.

You do realize that offensive means to cause a crime, a sin, an affront, an injury, an insult. Stating it this way seems to also imply that it is done intentionally.

How can you discuss with someone, hoping to reach an agreement if you treat the other person this way? And I'm not even a conspiracy theorist in any way, shape, or form. We probably agree on so many things. I cannot even begin to imagine how someone stating he thinks climate change is nothing to worry about would feel. I certainly understand why he would shut down completely and stop listening to you, no matter what you say.

Why do you assume that I'm a bad person who wants to offend you (to what end?), rather than me and you having a miscommunication problem that we should solve together?

That is not even REMOTELY what he said. READ WHAT HE SAID.

I'm sorry, but I'm still reading it the same way, even when I put it into a translator in my mother tongue. He did not agree with you either, so I'm still not sure of what he meant or what you understood. Here's my take on it:

I want us all to inhabit the same reality,

"There is only one reality that exists, I see it one way, and everyone should see the same thing." i.e. "see what I see" or "believe what I believe". Why would @Bandersnatch want to inhabit a reality he doesn't believe exists?

when problems arise.

Once again, here I'm reading we are assuming a problem is common for everyone. Priorities should be the same for everyone because, you know, we are in the same reality.

But, if you are a childless 20-year-old who has cancer, reversing climate change for future generations should be the least of your problems. Similarly, if you believe climate change is caused by a God you somehow offended, your primary problem is not the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere.

so that actionable decisions can be made

For climate change, we can do a lot of things:

• Switch our power sources to different ones, hoping we won't just replace one problem with another;
• Stop using power machines all together;
• Get down on our knees and pray.

These are all actionable decisions for the same problem. There are no reasons why we should prefer one to another. There are no reasons for choosing only one for everyone and not letting everyone choose their own. People are smart, they'll see which one works better than the other and change if needed. Confronting them is the best way to make them panic and ensure they won't change their mind.

You might laugh at the last one but people used to dance to make it rain when in a drought and they survived. The rain did fall at one point. You might think that it is just a coincidence and rain would have fallen anyway, so they danced for nothing. But stating that would mean that we might still be wrong today, and there might be another "actionable decision" possible: do nothing and just hope for the best. (Which is basically what we are doing right now.)

You might think science is the answer to climate change but science is also the reason for climate change. So it is understandable that some might be skeptical about science.

So:

• Reality is not the same for everyone;
• The problems are not the same for everyone;
• The solutions are not the same for everyone.

By your logic, the sincere advocates of the holocaust

Now we are in business. The Nazis have entered the room!

Godwin rejects the idea that whoever invokes Godwin's law has lost the argument, and suggests that, applied appropriately, the rule "should function less as a conversation ender and more as a conversation starter."

are not to be challenged.

Never said that. I said never to force someone to do something they don't want to do.

 

[hutchphd]

I see no reason to continue this silliness, because the Nazis have hijacked my country, and serious people are concerned.

 

[phinds]

You do realize that offensive means to cause a crime, a sin, an affront, an injury, an insult. Stating it

Yes, that is exactly what I meant. An affront.

this way seems to also imply that it is done intentionally.

In this particular case, it seems so. Your interpretation of things is clearly at odds with the rest of us. You have conflated a desire that we all recognize the same facts with requiring that we all have the same interpretation of, or belief about, those facts. These are NOT the same thing despite your apparent belief that they are.

 

[Ken Fabian]

Should people elected and appointed to the highest Offices act as if the science based advice is valid - advice governments commissioned in order to make informed policy choices? I think they do. Like the bad dam example, few if any will be personally capable of assessing the validity of that advice yet communities rely on them to respond appropriately to that advice. It shouldn't be a personal choice on their part whether to take the expert advice seriously, it should be their duty to do so.

Just because constituent irrigation farming communities downstream are dependent on the dangerous dam for their livelihoods oppose draining it - and accuse the engineers making the assessments of "green" political bias or can even find other engineers who will make assessments more to their liking - doesn't make the duty to act on the advice go away.

I think making the climate problem entirely about public opinion - where a lie that presses people's buttons is on an equal footing to the IPCC or NOAA or NASA or etc (that have been extraordinarily good at predicting the course of climate change) has been profoundly inhibiting. Making it NOT about those in highest Offices having a duty to seek out such advice and act on it (until and unless overwhelming public opinion supports it) has been incredibly dangerous in my view.

It doesn't make the need to help out those communities in the face of what needs to be done go away either. But people holding high Offices have a great array of expertise and resources to draw on that ordinary people do not - expert advice including for how to reduce the risks AND support affected communities.

If addressing the climate problem effectively is up to successful political activism instead of those holding the Offices with the duty that says more about the negligent (and corrupt) failures of those holding the actual Offices where the duty lies to step up and do their jobs than about climate activists.

 

[jack action]

Should people elected and appointed to the highest Offices act as if the science based advice is valid - advice governments commissioned in order to make informed policy choices? I think they do.

Making it NOT about those in highest Offices having a duty to seek out such advice and act on it (until and unless overwhelming public opinion supports it) has been incredibly dangerous in my view.

But what does that say about democracy? Why elect leaders to make decisions in the first place if there are known people who know best, who we shouldn't disagree with? Why not just let the scientific community make all the decisions?

In Canada, we have the Green Party of Canada to let the people express their opinions about green politics. Founded in 1983, it finally got 1 candidate elected in 2011, went up to 3 in 2019, and now they have 2. They used to be invited to the debates during an election campaign, but they are not anymore because their impact is not considered large enough.

There is such a party in every province. As of today, out of the 10 provinces, only 6 candidates are in Office, in 3 provinces. Around 2019, there were 15 within 4 provinces, with 8 of them being elected in Prince Edward Island (where the population is about 180 000 people).

The political option is there. People have spoken. They don't care. We - who is "we" exactly? - can tell ourselves that people are idiots and don't know what is good for them, but then why give them the right to vote?

And this brings me back to my initial point: The role of the scientific community is to influence the voters, not the politicians. They are failing big time because of their arrogance and they shouldn't blame anyone but themselves for failing to communicate their message.

 

[gmax137]

This thread is moderately interesting but IMO really should have been tied off a long time ago.

 

[phinds]

Should people elected and appointed to the highest Offices act as if the science based advice is valid - advice governments commissioned in order to make informed policy choices? I think they do.

You CLEARLY are not paying attention to the current American administration.

 

[gmax137]

You CLEARLY are not paying attention to the current American administration.

The poster is clearly expressing an opinion about the current administration. This thread should be closed, it's nothing but political anymore.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Why does a flat-earther think it is so important for me to believe the Earth is flat?

I think your knowledge of Science must be much greater than your knowledge of human nature. Flat Earth is a club of people who get pleasure from baiting people like you. Why should they admit to modern day Science if they are having fun.
See also the panel game Mornington Crescent. It's been running for decades on the wireless "BBCR4 I'm sorry I haven't a clue". My poor father in law never got the joke and spent all his time looking for rules whilst it was being played.

 

[pinball1970]

The poster is clearly expressing an opinion about the current administration. This thread should be closed, it's nothing but political anymore.

It would be nice to discuss some of the studies regarding climate change, it is possible to do this without getting into too much politics.
I think this is the longest thread on the subject since I have been on the site in ten years.
I am curious to know why @jack action has reached the conclusion he has reached.

 

[Ken Fabian]

But what does that say about democracy?

For Democracy to work well it requires an informed public. When people holding or aspiring to Office encourage their constituents to mistrust the science based advice - and get their votes on the false basis that that the expert advice is false or driven by (extremist) politics - that looks more like Populism than Democracy.

The role of the scientific community is to influence the voters, not the politicians.

I disagree. Orgs like the NAS were formed to inform governments. The IPCC was formed to inform governments. And I believe those who hold or aspire to the relevant Offices - as well as the specific Agencies that have the climate issue as part of their role - have a duty to pass on the gist of the expert advice correctly - and have an ethical duty to repudiate false and misleading claims about it; to encourage and feed them is extremely dangerous... to Democracy.

 

[GR86]

Im new here but figured i'd offer what seems common sense to the discussion. There have been many ice ages over millions of years, the last of which ended about 12k years ago. There were no carbon emitting cars and coal plants 12k years ago, which means the earth has it's own heat cycle and we are just here for the ride. But fear is an easy way to manipulate populations, we must use common sense. I'll just leave it at that.

 

[Ken Fabian]

Im new here but figured i'd offer what seems common sense to the discussion. There have been many ice ages over millions of years, the last of which ended about 12k years ago. There were no carbon emitting cars and coal plants 12k years ago, which means the earth has it's own heat cycle and we are just here for the ride. But fear is an easy way to manipulate populations, we must use common sense. I'll just leave it at that.

That is completely at odds with the best available science. It is good sense to pay attention to the science based advice rather than presume you know better than the science agencies and institutions that study climate and dismiss it.

That Earth's climate has high susceptibility to change seems to be why it is highly susceptible to change from GHG emissions.

Despite the evidence of wide variation in long ago paleo climate the Holocene - what immediately preceded this warming - had exceptional stability compared to most of the period since homo sapiens emerged as a species. There are good grounds to think the stability of climate over the Holocene was crucial to successful agriculture persisting for long enough for civilisations to arise.