7 ms·

Yes, and so that's why we need to study these things now. These aerosols dissipate - you need to continually add them to the atmosphere every few months. The po

Yes, and so that's why we need to study these things now. These aerosols dissipate - you need to continually add them to the atmosphere every few months. The point here is that this a temporary measure to bring down the temperature to prevent additional deaths caused from global warming. If it ended up causing more harm than the co2 alone, this could be stopped. However, when faced with the impossible situation all of humanity is in now, applying a tourniquet to stop the bleeding buys time for decarbonization to happen.

upsidesinclude 4y ago
>prevent additional deaths caused from global warming How would one even begin to make such an assessment? Natural disaster is less likely than ever to cause death with a higher than ever population. Damage dollar cost increases from weather have increased as a result of development, not increasingly severe events. >the impossible situation all of humanity is in now Compared to the current resurgence in desire for nuclear war, war and diminishing diplomacy? We are not in an impossible situation because of weather. This is alarmist and completely predicated on climate models being accurate, despite that they have always proven to be inaccurate. "Whelp, no issue there, those were the old models. We've got new, accurate models now!!"
- mort96 4y ago
  Climate models are generally inaccurate in the opposite direction of what we want though. Things are progressing faster than predicted. But I assume nothing will change your politically motivated opinion that climate change is no big deal.
  - yodon 4y ago
    >But I assume nothing will change your politically motivated opinion that climate change is no big deal. The fact that you disagree with someone does not make the other person's analysis a "politically motivated opinion" any more than your disagreeing with them makes your analysis a "politically motivated opinion." Either party in a disagreement can always choose to stoop to insults and ad hominem attacks. That doesn't mean stooping to insults and ad hominem attacks is the path to the best or desired outcomes.
    - mort96 4y ago
      Come on. They're conflating climate and weather, downplaying the effects, and calling people who are concerned about the ongoing mass extinction alarmists. This is good old climate change denialism, there is nothing here that's worth taking seriously.
      - upsidesinclude 4y ago
        Feel free to engage any of the points I brought up. Or don't. You are hyperbolic and provided nothing of value to the conversation thus far. I don't deny climate change. I question the appropriate response and the motivations of those that intend to place themselves in positions of authority unsubstantiated. You fall into the latter category if not the former.
        mort96 4y ago
        I'm 100% for challenging how the powers that be react to climate change! But you're saying we should be taking it less seriously than we already do. That's completely bonkers and the complete wrong conclusion. You're not challenging authority, you're supporting their destructive profit seeking behaviour by downplaying the negative effects.
        yodon 4y ago
        Speaking as someone who is unequivocally of the view that climate change is the greatest threat to human survival, I will say that the manner in which you are attacking your opponent is far less effective rhetorically, logically, and substantively than you believe it to be, because you are bringing so many pre-conceptions about "the other side" that you are hearing the other party say all sorts of things that they aren't actually saying and framing your argument with them around things you believe they believe but that they didn't actually say. By pulling your own emotions into check and responding to the actual concrete points the other party has made you make your own points far more effective because your words speak directly to what the other party is saying, not to a mental straw man you've built in your mind of what you think the "other side" says and believes. The ad hominem attacks and attacks on things the other party didn't say (but that you believe they believe) don't strengthen the effectiveness of your words, they weaken it. I'm not disagreeing with you as to the importance of climate change, I'm saying you have the capacity to be far more effective in how you chose to make your points, and given the importance you attach to this topic I'll advocate you owe it to yourself and to the world to bring your A-game to debates and actions on a subject you feel is this important.
  - origin_path 4y ago
    No, they are not. Models vs observations: https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-mod... Even the modellers themselves admit this. When they felt a need to re-declare victory a few years ago in response to graphs like that one, even then, their argument was "if we re-calculate the original models with better data then they aren't so inaccurate anymore". It wasn't that the original predictions were correct. Now look at a graph of temperatures as measured by satellites: https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ Notice that it has long periods where it moves sideways, despite continuing emissions. Models don't predict these apparently arbitrary pauses. "But I assume nothing will change your politically motivated opinion that climate change is no big deal." This is a thought terminating cliché. The default non-political position in any discussion of what should government or society do is always "do nothing". It has to be - think about it. It's always the people agitating for change who are engaged in the process of politics, because it's via the process of politics that change on the level of government policy is enacted. What's happening here is the opposite; the people saying "default to nothing, we think the need is unproven" are the people taking the default non-political position. It's the people demanding massive enforced changes to people's lives that are engaging in politics. And unfortunately, history teaches that people who insist on totally upending society for long term abstract goals must always be treated with suspicion because that is power, power corrupts, and the ground is full of the skeletons of people who died due to the dreams of despots. What they advertised as concern over some abstract ideal (justice, equality, nation, etc) rapidly became a mere tool to enter and stay in power.
    - hotpotamus 4y ago
      Why are you linking to one guy's wordpress blog? I think this is the kind of research that might take more than one person. And is his data only coming from satellites? Wouldn't it make more sense to get a variety of sensor data?
      - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
        > Why are you linking to one guy's wordpress blog? One particular guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(meteorologist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(meteorologist) https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer See particularly Wikipedia: > "Spencer holds contrarian views on climate change and intelligent design. These views are rejected by the scientific community." Which, if you translate back from the dry language that Wikipedia uses, says "this guy's a nut".
  - upsidesinclude 4y ago
    This statement is just false. As of yet, the outcomes have been on the lower end of modeling, i.e. less severe, until the models are revised to be more conservative in their estimates. Convenient because then the models can come back with elevated outcomes by comparison to the predicted average. Ah! See scientism at work? It's the persistent, politically motivated science that causes the hesitancy and disbelief

upsidesinclude 4y ago

>prevent additional deaths caused from global warming How would one even begin to make such an assessment? Natural disaster is less likely than ever to cause death with a higher than ever population. Damage dollar cost increases from weather have increased as a result of development, not increasingly severe events. >the impossible situation all of humanity is in now Compared to the current resurgence in desire for nuclear war, war and diminishing diplomacy? We are not in an impossible situation because of weather. This is alarmist and completely predicated on climate models being accurate, despite that they have always proven to be inaccurate. "Whelp, no issue there, those were the old models. We've got new, accurate models now!!"

mort96 4y ago
Climate models are generally inaccurate in the opposite direction of what we want though. Things are progressing faster than predicted. But I assume nothing will change your politically motivated opinion that climate change is no big deal.
- yodon 4y ago
  >But I assume nothing will change your politically motivated opinion that climate change is no big deal. The fact that you disagree with someone does not make the other person's analysis a "politically motivated opinion" any more than your disagreeing with them makes your analysis a "politically motivated opinion." Either party in a disagreement can always choose to stoop to insults and ad hominem attacks. That doesn't mean stooping to insults and ad hominem attacks is the path to the best or desired outcomes.
  - mort96 4y ago
    Come on. They're conflating climate and weather, downplaying the effects, and calling people who are concerned about the ongoing mass extinction alarmists. This is good old climate change denialism, there is nothing here that's worth taking seriously.
    - upsidesinclude 4y ago
      Feel free to engage any of the points I brought up. Or don't. You are hyperbolic and provided nothing of value to the conversation thus far. I don't deny climate change. I question the appropriate response and the motivations of those that intend to place themselves in positions of authority unsubstantiated. You fall into the latter category if not the former.
      - mort96 4y ago
        I'm 100% for challenging how the powers that be react to climate change! But you're saying we should be taking it less seriously than we already do. That's completely bonkers and the complete wrong conclusion. You're not challenging authority, you're supporting their destructive profit seeking behaviour by downplaying the negative effects.
        yodon 4y ago
        Speaking as someone who is unequivocally of the view that climate change is the greatest threat to human survival, I will say that the manner in which you are attacking your opponent is far less effective rhetorically, logically, and substantively than you believe it to be, because you are bringing so many pre-conceptions about "the other side" that you are hearing the other party say all sorts of things that they aren't actually saying and framing your argument with them around things you believe they believe but that they didn't actually say. By pulling your own emotions into check and responding to the actual concrete points the other party has made you make your own points far more effective because your words speak directly to what the other party is saying, not to a mental straw man you've built in your mind of what you think the "other side" says and believes. The ad hominem attacks and attacks on things the other party didn't say (but that you believe they believe) don't strengthen the effectiveness of your words, they weaken it. I'm not disagreeing with you as to the importance of climate change, I'm saying you have the capacity to be far more effective in how you chose to make your points, and given the importance you attach to this topic I'll advocate you owe it to yourself and to the world to bring your A-game to debates and actions on a subject you feel is this important.
- origin_path 4y ago
  No, they are not. Models vs observations: https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-mod... Even the modellers themselves admit this. When they felt a need to re-declare victory a few years ago in response to graphs like that one, even then, their argument was "if we re-calculate the original models with better data then they aren't so inaccurate anymore". It wasn't that the original predictions were correct. Now look at a graph of temperatures as measured by satellites: https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ Notice that it has long periods where it moves sideways, despite continuing emissions. Models don't predict these apparently arbitrary pauses. "But I assume nothing will change your politically motivated opinion that climate change is no big deal." This is a thought terminating cliché. The default non-political position in any discussion of what should government or society do is always "do nothing". It has to be - think about it. It's always the people agitating for change who are engaged in the process of politics, because it's via the process of politics that change on the level of government policy is enacted. What's happening here is the opposite; the people saying "default to nothing, we think the need is unproven" are the people taking the default non-political position. It's the people demanding massive enforced changes to people's lives that are engaging in politics. And unfortunately, history teaches that people who insist on totally upending society for long term abstract goals must always be treated with suspicion because that is power, power corrupts, and the ground is full of the skeletons of people who died due to the dreams of despots. What they advertised as concern over some abstract ideal (justice, equality, nation, etc) rapidly became a mere tool to enter and stay in power.
  - hotpotamus 4y ago
    Why are you linking to one guy's wordpress blog? I think this is the kind of research that might take more than one person. And is his data only coming from satellites? Wouldn't it make more sense to get a variety of sensor data?
    - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
      > Why are you linking to one guy's wordpress blog? One particular guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(meteorologist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(meteorologist) https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer See particularly Wikipedia: > "Spencer holds contrarian views on climate change and intelligent design. These views are rejected by the scientific community." Which, if you translate back from the dry language that Wikipedia uses, says "this guy's a nut".
- upsidesinclude 4y ago
  This statement is just false. As of yet, the outcomes have been on the lower end of modeling, i.e. less severe, until the models are revised to be more conservative in their estimates. Convenient because then the models can come back with elevated outcomes by comparison to the predicted average. Ah! See scientism at work? It's the persistent, politically motivated science that causes the hesitancy and disbelief