6 ms·

The changes that we're seeing now are occurring at such a horrifyingly rapid rate compared to the changes we've seen historically though. My reading of your mes

The changes that we're seeing now are occurring at such a horrifyingly rapid rate compared to the changes we've seen historically though. My reading of your message is that you're conflating historical changes in oceans, landmass, atmospheric streams and polar orientation with modern climate change. The latter is happening at 7 orders of magnitude faster than the former.

developer93 3y ago
They hit it on the head with their last sentences but managed to go steaming past the point with nary a glance.
Alupis 3y ago
And yet nobody really knows for sure how quickly climates changed in the past, or how fast they're supposed to change, or if they always change at a similar rate. On some level, what people advocate doing is creating climate change to benefit humans, which is kind of the antithesis of what climate science activists claim they want. I'm confident we don't understand the earth and climate well enough to "engineer" it to our will. I cannot imagine what a pole reversal would look like today. The truly scary thing is contemplating just how many things depend on, or assume polar north is where it is today. Even more scary, there's absolutely nothing anyone can do about polar reversal, and absolutely nothing humans do that is provoking it. It's just a natural phenomenon, during which things will indeed become extremely unpleasant.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > how fast they're supposed to change. The idea that this is even a coherent question is Creationist, because it presupposes a purposeful design.
  - Alupis 3y ago
    Interesting take - it was not my intention to insert a philosophy here such as Creationism. My point was if we're saying something is changing at an alarming rate - then the natural question would be what is a normal rate? One of the problems with observational science is we cannot ever really know for sure.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > My point was if we're saying something is changing at an alarming rate - then the natural question would be what is a normal rate Danger can be alarming even if on a wide enough time window its not unusual (that the current warming is unusual on any timeline as narrow as, say, “the history of human civilization on Earth” is clear, though.)
      - Alupis 3y ago
        > the history of human civilization on Earth We actually don't even know that much. Written records only go back so far, and the ability to measure say temperature in any relatively accurate way is a modern invention. Majority (or all?) dependable temperature data starts around 1900... If it's alarming because within recent human history something is changing quickly - well fine, but that's not how this stuff is being offered. Even so, the question remains - is it an actual problem? Has human activity created the change, accelerated change, or was the change inevitable (ie. caused by polar reversal)? These are difficult questions to answer absolutely. Even if we could answer these questions confidently - should we do anything about it? Would our actions to "combat" climate change cause unknown side effects? Probably... how do we square those potentially negative impacts with the "good" changes we've created? It's pretty complicated. Anyone offering absolutes or hysterics should be taken skeptically in my opinion.
        seadan83 3y ago
        Agree on absolutes and hysterics.. Though, if the data tells us very bad things are on the horizon, how can that not be discounted as hysterics? > Majority (or all?) dependable temperature data starts around 1900... I don't think this is quite true. We don't need a thermometer measurement to know historical temperature. "After analyzing enough ice core slices, which may each represent anywhere from a week to a year of time, a researcher can look for patterns to track changes in the atmosphere's composition and temperature, and what activity on Earth shaped it... The ratio of "light" oxygen-16 to "heavy" oxygen-18 in a sample, for instance, reveals the global temperature when the ice formed; " [1] [1] https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-tech/climate-core-how-scientists-study-ice-cores-reveal-earths-climate https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-tech/climate-c...
- seadan83 3y ago
  "For example, bubbles of air in glacial ice trap tiny samples of Earth’s atmosphere, giving scientists a history of greenhouse gases that stretches back more than 800,000 years. The chemical make-up of the ice provides clues to the average global temperature." [1] Is NASA incorrect about this? This XKCD visualizes the historic rates of temperature change in a pretty compelling way: https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/ > I cannot imagine what a pole reversal would look like today. The truly scary thing is contemplating just how many things depend on, or assume polar north is where it is today. I would ask in response - do magnetic poles impact climate change? (I presume you are talking about the magnetic polar north & south). According to NASA the magnetic poles have essentially no impact on climate change: "Some people have claimed that variations in Earth’s magnetic field are contributing to current global warming and can cause catastrophic climate change. However, the science doesn’t support that argument. In this blog, we’ll examine a number of proposed hypotheses regarding the effects of changes in Earth’s magnetic field on climate. We’ll also discuss physics-based reasons why changes in the magnetic field can’t impact climate." [2] What other impacts do the magnetic poles have? It is very interesting to me that the magnetic poles move by "34 miles (55 kilometers) per year" [2]. That is a pretty reasonably steady and fast rate of change. Seems like navigation equipment and anything else that relies on polar north should already be baking this in. After a decade, it's 340 miles of movement. [1] https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/pag... [2] https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3104/flip-flop-why-variations-in-earths-magnetic-field-arent-causing-todays-climate-change/ https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3104/flip-...
  - defrost 3y ago
    > What other impacts do the magnetic poles have? Animal migration | navigation and sheilding from cosmic gamma rays and high energy solar flux. On that last point for humans an instantanous reversal is not the big issue, it would be the transition from one state to the next that could conceivably see long (ish) periods either unprotected from high energy cosmic rays and|or some areas enduring concentrated gamma rays focused in by changing magnetic field lines. > Seems like navigation equipment and anything else that relies on polar north should already be baking this in. Have been for a century at least (in a rough fashion), the World Magnetic Model (WMM) and the International Geomagnetic Reference Field (IGRF) date back to the 1960s or so and have their parameters updated on a five year epoch to provide a detailed fine resolution surface field model with local vecotors and rates of change. https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/world-magnetic-model https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/world-magnetic-model https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/international-geomagnetic-reference-field https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/international-geomagnetic...
- aatharuv 3y ago
  I think the question we need to ask is how fast climate can change and how much can climate change. For which I'd say, at a rate and total amount of change low enough to be compatible with the survival of human civilization, not having mass deaths, and keeping ecosystems intact, even if changed. Civilization developed during a time of relatively stable weather. Rapid instability can cause mass dieoffs which at the very least will cause havoc with our food supply -- think fish. Or what's happening with peach production in Georgia. We need to stop the bleeding (by going carbon neutral), and in parallel think about how to mitigate the problems, and reverse the changes.

developer93 3y ago

They hit it on the head with their last sentences but managed to go steaming past the point with nary a glance.

Alupis 3y ago

And yet nobody really knows for sure how quickly climates changed in the past, or how fast they're supposed to change, or if they always change at a similar rate. On some level, what people advocate doing is creating climate change to benefit humans, which is kind of the antithesis of what climate science activists claim they want. I'm confident we don't understand the earth and climate well enough to "engineer" it to our will. I cannot imagine what a pole reversal would look like today. The truly scary thing is contemplating just how many things depend on, or assume polar north is where it is today. Even more scary, there's absolutely nothing anyone can do about polar reversal, and absolutely nothing humans do that is provoking it. It's just a natural phenomenon, during which things will indeed become extremely unpleasant.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> how fast they're supposed to change. The idea that this is even a coherent question is Creationist, because it presupposes a purposeful design.
- Alupis 3y ago
  Interesting take - it was not my intention to insert a philosophy here such as Creationism. My point was if we're saying something is changing at an alarming rate - then the natural question would be what is a normal rate? One of the problems with observational science is we cannot ever really know for sure.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > My point was if we're saying something is changing at an alarming rate - then the natural question would be what is a normal rate Danger can be alarming even if on a wide enough time window its not unusual (that the current warming is unusual on any timeline as narrow as, say, “the history of human civilization on Earth” is clear, though.)
    - Alupis 3y ago
      > the history of human civilization on Earth We actually don't even know that much. Written records only go back so far, and the ability to measure say temperature in any relatively accurate way is a modern invention. Majority (or all?) dependable temperature data starts around 1900... If it's alarming because within recent human history something is changing quickly - well fine, but that's not how this stuff is being offered. Even so, the question remains - is it an actual problem? Has human activity created the change, accelerated change, or was the change inevitable (ie. caused by polar reversal)? These are difficult questions to answer absolutely. Even if we could answer these questions confidently - should we do anything about it? Would our actions to "combat" climate change cause unknown side effects? Probably... how do we square those potentially negative impacts with the "good" changes we've created? It's pretty complicated. Anyone offering absolutes or hysterics should be taken skeptically in my opinion.
      - seadan83 3y ago
        Agree on absolutes and hysterics.. Though, if the data tells us very bad things are on the horizon, how can that not be discounted as hysterics? > Majority (or all?) dependable temperature data starts around 1900... I don't think this is quite true. We don't need a thermometer measurement to know historical temperature. "After analyzing enough ice core slices, which may each represent anywhere from a week to a year of time, a researcher can look for patterns to track changes in the atmosphere's composition and temperature, and what activity on Earth shaped it... The ratio of "light" oxygen-16 to "heavy" oxygen-18 in a sample, for instance, reveals the global temperature when the ice formed; " [1] [1] https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-tech/climate-core-how-scientists-study-ice-cores-reveal-earths-climate https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-tech/climate-c...
seadan83 3y ago
"For example, bubbles of air in glacial ice trap tiny samples of Earth’s atmosphere, giving scientists a history of greenhouse gases that stretches back more than 800,000 years. The chemical make-up of the ice provides clues to the average global temperature." [1] Is NASA incorrect about this? This XKCD visualizes the historic rates of temperature change in a pretty compelling way: https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/ > I cannot imagine what a pole reversal would look like today. The truly scary thing is contemplating just how many things depend on, or assume polar north is where it is today. I would ask in response - do magnetic poles impact climate change? (I presume you are talking about the magnetic polar north & south). According to NASA the magnetic poles have essentially no impact on climate change: "Some people have claimed that variations in Earth’s magnetic field are contributing to current global warming and can cause catastrophic climate change. However, the science doesn’t support that argument. In this blog, we’ll examine a number of proposed hypotheses regarding the effects of changes in Earth’s magnetic field on climate. We’ll also discuss physics-based reasons why changes in the magnetic field can’t impact climate." [2] What other impacts do the magnetic poles have? It is very interesting to me that the magnetic poles move by "34 miles (55 kilometers) per year" [2]. That is a pretty reasonably steady and fast rate of change. Seems like navigation equipment and anything else that relies on polar north should already be baking this in. After a decade, it's 340 miles of movement. [1] https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/pag... [2] https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3104/flip-flop-why-variations-in-earths-magnetic-field-arent-causing-todays-climate-change/ https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3104/flip-...
- defrost 3y ago
  > What other impacts do the magnetic poles have? Animal migration | navigation and sheilding from cosmic gamma rays and high energy solar flux. On that last point for humans an instantanous reversal is not the big issue, it would be the transition from one state to the next that could conceivably see long (ish) periods either unprotected from high energy cosmic rays and|or some areas enduring concentrated gamma rays focused in by changing magnetic field lines. > Seems like navigation equipment and anything else that relies on polar north should already be baking this in. Have been for a century at least (in a rough fashion), the World Magnetic Model (WMM) and the International Geomagnetic Reference Field (IGRF) date back to the 1960s or so and have their parameters updated on a five year epoch to provide a detailed fine resolution surface field model with local vecotors and rates of change. https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/world-magnetic-model https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/world-magnetic-model https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/international-geomagnetic-reference-field https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/international-geomagnetic...
aatharuv 3y ago
I think the question we need to ask is how fast climate can change and how much can climate change. For which I'd say, at a rate and total amount of change low enough to be compatible with the survival of human civilization, not having mass deaths, and keeping ecosystems intact, even if changed. Civilization developed during a time of relatively stable weather. Rapid instability can cause mass dieoffs which at the very least will cause havoc with our food supply -- think fish. Or what's happening with peach production in Georgia. We need to stop the bleeding (by going carbon neutral), and in parallel think about how to mitigate the problems, and reverse the changes.