7 ms·

A modern 1877 scale event would probably immediately fuel (pun intended) a furious climate change debate, even though attributing the existence of the El Niño i

A modern 1877 scale event would probably immediately fuel (pun intended) a furious climate change debate, even though attributing the existence of the El Niño itself to fossil fuels would not be scientifically justified... or maybe was the 1877 El Niño caused by fossil fuels (so many Wars happened in those years) ?

defrost 1mo ago
Nobody in planet modelling has ever suggested that the 3 phase El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) exists because of fossil fuel usage. An extreme swing, here and there, has always been part of its nature. The observed change is more and more extreme swings, greater amplitude, higher frequency.
- pelasaco 1mo ago
  in one hand i wanted to highlight that if it was today, we - as civilization - would definitely create a link between the events, based on our "feeling" in another hand, i question if we really could rule out, since back in the days, everything that we have was coal.
  - deleted 1mo ago
    [deleted]
  - defrost 1mo ago
    If you care to get analytic, it's related to the insulation factor of the atmosphere, fairly consistent amounts of sunlight in (subject to know solar variation and orbit) that heats land and sea surface radiating thermal energy out to space with a "small" amount trapped to maintain a globally mean amount of energy that powers climate cells and cascades into other forms. The global amount of coal use in the 1880s was non zero, sure, but overall the CO2 emissions from those tonnages were minuscule compared to modern emissions within the past 50 years .. and we have direct libraries of atmosphere created since the early years of the Cold War and many pocket captures for the past 200 years, with proxies (such as ice core bubbles) going back far longer. ENSO predates heavy coal use - so it's not something created by human activity, and as noted the first uses of coal were barely enough to move the needle (recall that collieries kept records so we have a fair handle on tonnages extracted).
  - tecleandor 1mo ago
    And you're saying that, based in you "feeling"? Nice.
    - pelasaco 1mo ago
      are you really comparing Politics based on feeling with a HN comment? lol
- pelasaco 1mo ago
  > Nobody in planet modelling has ever suggested that the 3 phase El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) We saw already around 2020 or so that specialists opinions didn't really matter. Feelings and politicians opinions were more relevant... so "nobody in planet modelling" means nothing if Politicians and Activists tries to create this link.. Al Gore, if I remember correctly, and António Guterres, i think last month, tried to create this link already.. probably others too?
  - watwut 1mo ago
    The most anti-facts and anti reality bulshit comes from people who mock feelings and opinions while framing themselves as factual and u biases. Especially in climate change "debate".
    - pelasaco 1mo ago
      or the said "experts" hungry for media attention.. we saw it all
      - watwut 1mo ago
        I have no idea who you are talking about. You want to imply doubt about climate change without saying it, using dog whistles and vague accusations of "feelings". You did not stated a single fact, you apparently dont know much about topic, but you know some experts and politicians opinions are wrong.
        throw1234567891 1mo ago
        Tell us facts. Who’s facts are these facts.
        wookmaster 1mo ago
        Facts? 42 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere by humans every year changing the atmosphere composition from ~300 ppm 100 years ago to ~420 ppm today. CO2 Is chemically stable in the atmosphere and can persist for centuries. CO2 catches thermal radiation from the earth and traps it. These are all scientific facts that are indisputable. We can also show that its a fact heat affects weather and its not a very far stretch to trapping more heat every year with more CO2 affects global weather. Trapping more heat across the globe AKA global warming are indisputable facts. We can measure CO2 levels every year and global temperature trends. Doesnt matter who says it, there's a ton of peer reviewed science for every statement there. What's to dispute?
- throw1234567891 1mo ago
  [flagged]
  - defrost 1mo ago
    Near as I can parse that question, I'd suggest you start with intro calculus and physics, look into heat equations, springs and pendulums. Level up into delayed oscillators, then look into those models with added noise. It's a big field.
    - throw1234567891 1mo ago
      Ah, “go and educate yourself” argument never ceases to amaze me. You seem to know. Why don’t you prepare educational data and educate people instead of “go figure it out”. If each and everyone has to “go and figure it out”, I’m not surprised almost nobody cares. People are just tired of hearing it. They don’t even know what the correct question is!

defrost 1mo ago

Nobody in planet modelling has ever suggested that the 3 phase El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) exists because of fossil fuel usage. An extreme swing, here and there, has always been part of its nature. The observed change is more and more extreme swings, greater amplitude, higher frequency.

pelasaco 1mo ago
in one hand i wanted to highlight that if it was today, we - as civilization - would definitely create a link between the events, based on our "feeling" in another hand, i question if we really could rule out, since back in the days, everything that we have was coal.
- deleted 1mo ago
  [deleted]
- defrost 1mo ago
  If you care to get analytic, it's related to the insulation factor of the atmosphere, fairly consistent amounts of sunlight in (subject to know solar variation and orbit) that heats land and sea surface radiating thermal energy out to space with a "small" amount trapped to maintain a globally mean amount of energy that powers climate cells and cascades into other forms. The global amount of coal use in the 1880s was non zero, sure, but overall the CO2 emissions from those tonnages were minuscule compared to modern emissions within the past 50 years .. and we have direct libraries of atmosphere created since the early years of the Cold War and many pocket captures for the past 200 years, with proxies (such as ice core bubbles) going back far longer. ENSO predates heavy coal use - so it's not something created by human activity, and as noted the first uses of coal were barely enough to move the needle (recall that collieries kept records so we have a fair handle on tonnages extracted).
- tecleandor 1mo ago
  And you're saying that, based in you "feeling"? Nice.
  - pelasaco 1mo ago
    are you really comparing Politics based on feeling with a HN comment? lol
pelasaco 1mo ago
> Nobody in planet modelling has ever suggested that the 3 phase El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) We saw already around 2020 or so that specialists opinions didn't really matter. Feelings and politicians opinions were more relevant... so "nobody in planet modelling" means nothing if Politicians and Activists tries to create this link.. Al Gore, if I remember correctly, and António Guterres, i think last month, tried to create this link already.. probably others too?
- watwut 1mo ago
  The most anti-facts and anti reality bulshit comes from people who mock feelings and opinions while framing themselves as factual and u biases. Especially in climate change "debate".
  - pelasaco 1mo ago
    or the said "experts" hungry for media attention.. we saw it all
    - watwut 1mo ago
      I have no idea who you are talking about. You want to imply doubt about climate change without saying it, using dog whistles and vague accusations of "feelings". You did not stated a single fact, you apparently dont know much about topic, but you know some experts and politicians opinions are wrong.
      - throw1234567891 1mo ago
        Tell us facts. Who’s facts are these facts.
        wookmaster 1mo ago
        Facts? 42 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere by humans every year changing the atmosphere composition from ~300 ppm 100 years ago to ~420 ppm today. CO2 Is chemically stable in the atmosphere and can persist for centuries. CO2 catches thermal radiation from the earth and traps it. These are all scientific facts that are indisputable. We can also show that its a fact heat affects weather and its not a very far stretch to trapping more heat every year with more CO2 affects global weather. Trapping more heat across the globe AKA global warming are indisputable facts. We can measure CO2 levels every year and global temperature trends. Doesnt matter who says it, there's a ton of peer reviewed science for every statement there. What's to dispute?
throw1234567891 1mo ago
[flagged]
- defrost 1mo ago
  Near as I can parse that question, I'd suggest you start with intro calculus and physics, look into heat equations, springs and pendulums. Level up into delayed oscillators, then look into those models with added noise. It's a big field.
  - throw1234567891 1mo ago
    Ah, “go and educate yourself” argument never ceases to amaze me. You seem to know. Why don’t you prepare educational data and educate people instead of “go figure it out”. If each and everyone has to “go and figure it out”, I’m not surprised almost nobody cares. People are just tired of hearing it. They don’t even know what the correct question is!