Indeed.

How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?

Using this ancient evidence, scientists have built a record of Earth’s past climates, or “paleoclimates.” The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.

As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.

Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.

It’s because you’ve gotten everything wrong about every issue. — NOS4A2

Lol. According to the NY Post. Thank god they get things right.

What worries me more are those who believe it doesn't matter who wins, because both candidates are flawed. — Relativist

That’s a tough one. So many intelligent people make this argument— some good friends of mine (in “real life”) — that I’m trying to be more sympathetic towards it while also holding the feeling that I’m being asked to deny reality, which is frustrating. I’ve probed pretty hard and still haven’t been given convincing answers— but I’m definitely open to them.

If I thought that voting third party (I really like Cornel West, for example) would make a big difference, even in the long run, I’d do so and encourage others as well.

Both parties are indeed beholden to special interests, mostly corporate — Wall Street, big oil, Pharma, insurance, etc — but there are still ideological and policy differences, which are becoming more and more vast. Go down the line and it’s obvious. Climate change. Guns. Abortion. Voting rights.

I think the mistake is overthinking elections. It’s buying into the idea that this is our main power, and so we have to endlessly debate how to leverage it. But when you look at local politics, where practical things get done (zoning boards, school boards, budget committees), it’s more about which administration will hinder your goals.

If the choice is Trump or Biden, which it will be, it’s obvious to me who’s worse— and it does no good pretending that a vote for anyone else is much more than giving the worst candidate more of a chance, which is counterproductive to say the least. Unless you’re in a safe state, it’s just kind of silly to vote third party or not vote at all. What you’re doing is acting against your professed interests.

But I digress.

Now it’s “Trump has never been convicted of insurrection!” As if that would matter to cultists.

Trump is convicted. The predictable response: “The judge was corrupt— or the jury was stacked against him,” etc. It doesn’t end.

There reaches a point where a person is no longer amenable to reason or evidence. Look no further than election denial, climate denial, 2nd amendment enthusiasts, flat earthers, etc. Doesn’t matter — there will always be some excuse to go on believing what you wanted to believe in the first place.

Earth Was Due for Another Year of Record Warmth. But This Warm?

Interesting read. Gifted article.

Earth is finishing up its warmest year in the past 174 years, and very likely the past 125,000.

Unyielding heat waves broiled Phoenix and Argentina. Wildfires raged across Canada. Flooding in Libya killed thousands. Wintertime ice cover in the dark seas around Antarctica was at unprecedented lows.

This year’s global temperatures did not just beat prior records. They left them in the dust. From June through November, the mercury spent month after month soaring off the charts. December’s temperatures have largely remained above normal: Much of the Northeastern United States is expecting springlike conditions this week.

That is why scientists are already sifting through evidence — from oceans, volcanic eruptions, even pollution from cargo ships — to see whether this year might reveal something new about the climate and what we are doing to it.

You don’t have a clue about what you’re talking about. But that tracks with literally everything else you’ve posted.

Anyway: (1) 800 thousand years isn’t short, and the data is accurate indeed. (2) We’re warming at an alarming rate, and we know why (greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and deforestation). Nothing to do with “models.”

The “models” you do speak of have been remarkably accurate. What they’ve done is underestimated the warming, however.

Also, this isn’t normal:



If you can’t see why this would be troubling to climate scientists, you’re practically illiterate. Or going out of your way to find reasons for denial. We all know you’re a climate denier— but maybe there’s something to the illiteracy part too— I can’t be certain.

Not hard to predict the future in this case. More emissions of greenhouse gases, more warming. Climate deniers desperation to find faults is pathetic, as always.

Latest analysis of monthly averages:



https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/26/climate/global-warming-accelerating.html

So hard to predict what will happen in the future! Despite the fact that this was indeed predicted — decades ago. And understood over 100 years ago.

Asteroid hurtling towards earth. Those in denial: “You have failed to consider the risks of PREVENTING the asteroid from hitting us!”

We don't have complete knowledge of its history and the accurate data that we have is from a relatively short time period. — Agree-to-Disagree

800 thousand years isn’t short.

Watching people bend over backwards denying what’s happening before their eyes (accurately predicted by scientists— in fact underestimated) is pretty funny.

“It’s a hundred years from now! Models are always wrong!”

Except this was known over a hundred years ago. Eh, denial runs deep.

From a certain point of view, there are no individuals. Where an individual begins and ends is basically arbitrary. Same with a group. There are beings all around us of all kinds— we humans categorize them in our perception and our language.

The focus on “great men” is as arbitrary as “great nations” or “great peoples.” It can be that simple if we want it to be— Namely, if we want to tell the story of history as a series of humans who we deem worth remembering. Personally, I think it’s mostly crap. There’s so much chance involved it’s barely worth considering, and most achieved their status as a result of others’ influence anyway, from Alexander to Napoleon.

Yeah, another shocker: just ignore whatever you disagree with. In line with the rest of your juvenile ramblings.

During the first six weeks of the war in Gaza, Israel routinely used one of its biggest and most destructive bombs in areas it designated safe for civilians, according to an analysis of visual evidence by The New York Times.

The video investigation focuses on the use of 2,000-pound bombs in an area of southern Gaza where Israel had ordered civilians to move for safety. While bombs of that size are used by several Western militaries, munitions experts say they are almost never dropped by U.S. forces in densely populated areas anymore.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/21/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-bomb-investigation.html

What a shocker.

the news told you the world is ending — Lionino

It’s not ending. But keep repeating your news that tells you it doesn’t exist. Much better strategy.

Care to trot out Fred Singer next, as a “relevant” source? :lol:

Better to scurry away like the many deniers before you. Save yourself the further embarrassment.

Microplastics are painting an apocalyptic future — Lionino

Microplastics are a grift. You’re an alarmist.

They use words like "grifter" without identifying any actual case, cast doubt on the sanity of their interlocutors, make vague accusations of religiosity with no foundation, and then come up with Dr John Christy for fucks sake, ex missionary turned climate denier, supported by big oil, Trump's darling, and present him as legitimate mainstream science. — unenlightened

This is what I mean. Otherwise normal adults regress to the intellectual level of maybe an 8 or 9v year old when they hit this topic. And it’s an easy one to look at, because the evidence is overwhelming (and why the consensus is so high).

So it’s fun to see. You get either complete ignorance or conspiracy theories (also just ignorance) repeated from conservative circles — ie talking heads who are themselves parroting talking points from fossil industry lawyers and think tanks.

So it’s a hoax, a grift, an agenda, a scam, a religion. Climate scientists are alarmists, dogmatists, zealots. Funny so much quasi-religious accusations get thrown about when so much of this comes from evangelicals, who themselves are largely young-earth creationists.

Words don’t influence people— people influence people. Through words. But only in some cases— like when it’s convenient to our political ideology.

Donald Trump knew there would be violence— and rallied his followers for it, knowing full well he could claim plausible deniability while he drove back to the White House.

Kudos to @Michael for continually exposing to any viewing bystander just how ridiculous our resident Trump cultist’s views are.

The United Nations said in 1989 that the Earth would be underwater if we did not stop climate change by 2000 — Lionino

No they didn’t.

Also relevant — Lionino

No, it isn’t. Read up on both the article and the goofy Roy Spencer. Both guys are long known climate deniers.

Can’t denialists peddle anything new? Jeesh.

Gaza Deaths Surpass Any Arab Loss in Wars With Israel in Past 40 Years

The death toll reported in Gaza has reached roughly 20,000, according to officials in the territory, the heaviest loss on the Arab side in any war with Israel since the 1982 Lebanon invasion.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/21/world/middleeast/gaza-death-toll-palestinians.html

A massacre of innocent people and large scale collective punishment, all unfolding right in front of us.

Let’s hope the Arab countries don’t start bombing innocent Israelis for the actions of their government. Even though that would be just, according to genocide apologists on the philosophy forum. (As long as the 20,000 were claimed to be killed by accident — or with good intentions, of course.)

I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we act accordingly.

Gaza won’t return to what it was before. We will eliminate everything.

— Some Hamas-like extremist. Oh wait, no…the Israeli defense minister.

This thread is about climate change. Move along.

July 2023 Is Hottest Month Ever Recorded on Earth

Also worth repeating:

Over 100 years:



And over 800 thousand years:

Several times in Earth's history, rapid global warming occurred, apparently spurred by amplifying feedbacks. In each case, more than half of plant and animal species became extinct. New species came into being over tens and hundreds of thousands of years. But these are time scales and generations that we cannot imagine.

— James Hansen, climate scientist grifter

I'm just finding it really interesting trying to connect the non-existent dots you're connecting here. — AmadeusD

Doomsday prophecies — Tzeentch

It is too late. You must go into the cage and eat the bugs to save the planet. — Lionino

the world is ending — Tzeentch

Again…You ok?

Whatever— I don’t really care. Be well.

I gave you the quote, and an independent response to it. — AmadeusD

And apparently didn't even read it. Try doing so.

no one is doing that. — AmadeusD

...

Doomsday prophecies — Tzeentch

It is too late. You must go into the cage and eat the bugs to save the planet. — Lionino

the world is ending — Tzeentch

Are you ok?

Please, please try not to make things up that other people think or say to argue with. — AmadeusD

...

His position (and others like him) seems to be that the facts of the matter infer that denying the impending end of the world can only be the result of ignorance (or, i guess, more importantly to them, inaction) — AmadeusD

But please, do go on lecturing others about how to communicate, and about "bad faith."

:yawn:

Imagine the level of a mind that hears “the world is facing an existential threat,” is given the overwhelming evidence, and chooses to ignore all of it in favor of screaming endlessly about how “existential” is technically the wrong word.

Just more denialism, in the end. They call it “delayism” now— but it’s all just denialism to me.

—

Just to take it out of the realm of chit-chat, where any imbecile can participate:



That should be concerning.

This is, in no sense whatsoever, a strawman. — AmadeusD

It is— and it’s been used for a long time. Hence why the term climate “alarmism” was invented and repeated ad nauseam within the conservative media bubble. Glad I used the example of AOC — I see you got sucked into that as well.

It’s such a stupid point that I barely give it attention anymore. I treat it the same way I would read the buffoons (forgive the accuracy) who claim nuclear war wouldn’t count as “existential” because people could potentially survive in some underground bunker. Nah, I’ll keep using “existential threat.” But thanks anyway.

We know that Oil companies and oil exporting countries have been spending a great deal of effort and money undermining any suggestion that there is a climate crisis. — unenlightened

Exxon’s own scientists knew what was happening in the late 70s, and as has now been exhaustively documented, this was deliberately minimized and the scientists fired in favor of hiring the same “merchants of doubt” that tobacco companies used to sow doubt about smoking and lung cancer.

Massive propaganda from the fossil fuel industry for decades. But it’s the climate scientists that are the “grifters.” And graphs are “esotheric knowledge.”

I guess the latest tactic of climate denialists is to build a new strawman: “Well we agree on the facts, but we just don’t believe the WORLD WILL END.” You saw a lot of this on Fox News a few years back claiming that AOC et al. were saying “we have 12 years before the world explodes.” Just more nonsense.

Same things being used here. It’s the only way people with no understanding of an issue can avoid any real substance (or work) and still feel like they’re contributing to the conversation somehow. The thread has been great in this respect — it’s like an intellectual fly trap. Makes it much easier to ignore various posters on every other topic once they show their hand on this one.

Remember the calls for reducing nuclear weapons? Yeah — a grift. Because nuclear war never happened— and besides, it wouldn’t have been the END OF THE WORLD. A few people would probably survive. Check and mate.

Way to project your ignorance. Well done. Please go on telling everyone about the “climate grift.”

If this isn't pseudo-religious hooey, I don't know what is. — Tzeentch

Ah, so a guy on the internet saying something you don’t like makes for climate science being a “grift.” Got it.

I don’t like a lot of what Richard Dawkins says, or how he says it. Zoology is a grift.

More “esotheric” knowledge (you know, a graph):



It takes a lot of work, and years of libertarian “thinking,” to look at something like this and conclude “it smells of grift to me.”

There is a an important psychological aspect to climate change, that it demands a huge transformation in ones fundamental understanding of oneself, of humanity, of society and economics, and a change of direction away from endless growth that threatens ones' identity like no other issue. Denial is commonplace, and particularly denial that anything is happening that will radically change the way of life of the human world. — unenlightened

The climate grift — Tzeentch

:lol: Case in point.

We already see effects scientists predicted, such as the loss of sea ice, melting glaciers and ice sheets, sea level rise, and more intense heat waves.

Scientists predict global temperature increases from human-made greenhouse gases will continue. Severe weather damage will also increase and intensify.

Some changes (such as droughts, wildfires, and extreme rainfall) are happening faster than scientists previously assessed. In fact, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — the United Nations body established to assess the science related to climate change — modern humans have never before seen the observed changes in our global climate, and some of these changes are irreversible over the next hundreds to thousands of years.

Scientists have high confidence that global temperatures will continue to rise for many decades, mainly due to greenhouse gases produced by human activities.

So, the Earth's average temperature has increased about 2 degrees Fahrenheit during the 20th century. What's the big deal?

The IPCC’s Sixth Assessment report, published in 2021, found that human emissions of heat-trapping gases have already warmed the climate by nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since 1850-1900.1 The global average temperature is expected to reach or exceed 1.5 degrees C (about 3 degrees F) within the next few decades. These changes will affect all regions of Earth.

The severity of effects caused by climate change will depend on the path of future human activities. More greenhouse gas emissions will lead to more climate extremes and widespread damaging effects across our planet. However, those future effects depend on the total amount of carbon dioxide we emit. So, if we can reduce emissions, we may avoid some of the worst effects.

"The scientific evidence is unequivocal: climate change is a threat to human wellbeing and the health of the planet. Any further delay in concerted global action will miss the brief, rapidly closing window to secure a liveable future."
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Future effects of global climate change in the United States:

Here are some of the expected effects of global climate change on the United States, according to the Third and Fourth National Climate Assessment Reports.

U.S. Sea Level Likely to Rise 1 to 6.6 Feet by 2100
Global sea level has risen about 8 inches (0.2 meters) since reliable record-keeping began in 1880. By 2100, scientists project that it will rise at least another foot (0.3 meters), but possibly as high as 6.6 feet (2 meters) in a high-emissions scenario. Sea level is rising because of added water from melting land ice and the expansion of seawater as it warms.

Hurricanes Will Become Stronger and More Intense
Scientists project that hurricane-associated storm intensity and rainfall rates will increase as the climate continues to warm.

More Droughts and Heat Waves

Droughts in the Southwest and heat waves (periods of abnormally hot weather lasting days to weeks) are projected to become more intense, and cold waves less intense and less frequent.

Longer Wildfire Season

Warming temperatures have extended and intensified wildfire season in the West, where long-term drought in the region has heightened the risk of fires. Scientists estimate that human-caused climate change has already doubled the area of forest burned in recent decades. By around 2050, the amount of land consumed by wildfires in Western states is projected to further increase by two to six times. Even in traditionally rainy regions like the Southeast, wildfires are projected to increase by about 30%.

Changes in Precipitation Patterns

Climate change is having an uneven effect on precipitation (rain and snow) in the United States, with some locations experiencing increased precipitation and flooding, while others suffer from drought. On average, more winter and spring precipitation is projected for the northern United States, and less for the Southwest, over this century.

Frost-Free Season (and Growing Season) will Lengthen

The length of the frost-free season, and the corresponding growing season, has been increasing since the 1980s, with the largest increases occurring in the western United States. Across the United States, the growing season is projected to continue to lengthen, which will affect ecosystems and agriculture.

Global Temperatures Will Continue to Rise

Summer of 2023 was Earth's hottest summer on record, 0.41 degrees Fahrenheit (F) (0.23 degrees Celsius (C)) warmer than any other summer in NASA’s record and 2.1 degrees F (1.2 C) warmer than the average summer between 1951 and 1980.

Arctic Is Very Likely to Become Ice-Free

Sea ice cover in the Arctic Ocean is expected to continue decreasing, and the Arctic Ocean will very likely become essentially ice-free in late summer if current projections hold. This change is expected to occur before mid-century.

—NASA

But don’t worry, you can still know all this and not care— because some dude read something about the fact/value dichotomy in freshman philosophy class. So no judgment allowed.

There is no morality involved in Mikie's defense of the science, he's merely saying if you wanna be a self deceiving buffoon and deny the science, go right ahead, but all it takes is a quick 5 second search to return loads of neutral non biased science in support of climate change. — Vaskane

:up: Glad someone understands. :wink:

Just more fluff and feelings. If you’re not interested in the science, your gripes about how someone else communicates is boring and irrelevant. Take it somewhere else.

I very much doubt he does — Baden

It’s probably Bill’s worst editorial he’s done in years. I was cringing at certain points. No historical knowledge whatsoever, just slogans. That this is being dragged out as an example of “good points” shows exactly the kind of lazy thinking behind most posts. So be it.

But yeah — not even worth 8 minutes.

:up: :up:

Hamas decapitates babies: outrage.

Israel decapitates thousands of babies: self defense.

You see, it’s all about HOW you kill children. Israel kills far more, but they do it the right way — and for noble reasons. Unlike those animals who kill less children, but do so the wrong way.

If a bombing campaign is to be undertaken, civilians will die. — BitconnectCarlos

That's not necessarily true.

Some methods result in more civilian deaths than others, but none result in zero. — BitconnectCarlos

Plenty result in zero. True, you can't drop a nuclear bomb on a city and have no civilian deaths -- but that's a reason for not doing it.

I think you've jumped from morals to actions and back — AmadeusD

Morality is based on action. It's actions that matter, it's actions that can be judged. Whatever a person may believe is relevant, but in this case only to the extent that it leads to action or inaction.

I have no issue with action being taken to combat climate change anyway — AmadeusD

i have no intuition that we need to, or should, do much about it. — AmadeusD

So you have no "intuition" that we should do anything about it (we should), or need to (we do), but yet have no problem if we do. You're fine either way. Cool. Pointless, but cool.

In this case, there is.
— Mikie

There, unequivocally, is not. — AmadeusD

There is, and I've done so. Correctly. That you're struggling with it doesn't change that.

You not understanding my moral/emotional reaction is absolutely no matter for this conflict of moral position. You don't understand my mental state here, and can't conceive of it without inferring psychopathy. — AmadeusD

There's nothing to understand. Either you care about the well being of others, or you don't. If you don't, you're a psychopath -- although there are other terms for it too (I mentioned nihilism). But that's not you, I don't think -- you're clearly just ignorant. In the case of climate change, a lot of people are apathetic because of the time scales involved -- they don't know much about it, it seems distant, it seems abstract, etc. I consider all of that a kind of ignorance. Which is probably excusing them, given how dire the situation has become.

That's factually inaccurate, as I am neither a psychopath nor do I have a strong stance in caring about climate change. Sorry. The facts are stacked against you conclusively on this. — AmadeusD

Which is why I've said repeatedly that you're ignorant. That's not accusing you of psychopathy. You want to insist that it's psychopathy, and then try to weasel out of it through undergraduate moral philosophy, in an attempt to avoid the work of learning about climate change and its consequences.

So let's talk about the consequences of climate change, shall we? Perhaps that's the best route. Let's look at the effects of ice caps melting or sea level rise or Amazon rainforest destruction or tipping points. All of it is easy to dismiss or ignore, so one can continue one's apathy, but once seen and understood it'll change your perspective I think. It changed mine -- as did learning about nuclear weapons. It's worth learning about, for no other reason then it's an existential threat.

Assuming the person does care about others, they wouldn’t truly want to do nothing while the planet burns.
— Mikie

Hmm, again, that's just your position. — AmadeusD

:lol:

This is why most people shouldn't "study" philosophy.

No, it's not my "position" that a person who cares about others wouldn't want to do nothing as others burn. That's logic.

No nihilism required. — AmadeusD

Antinatalism is nihilism, through and through. Well disguised, I grant you.

In any case, to use this as justification for doing nothing while others burn is pretty ridiculous.

The eg of a child drowning is not at all correlative of the climate crisis. — AmadeusD

Actually it's very much correlative. See my point earlier about people struggling with climate change because of its abstractness and apparent distance. But we're all culpable, especially those of us living in wealthy countries.

Again, it’s due to either ignorance or some kind of anti-social psychology.
— Mikie

It isn't, So there we are — AmadeusD

It is. Which is why you want to avoid the drowning child example. I suppose letting her drown instead of acting isn't psychopathy or ignorance but...what, antinatalism?

In the case of climate disaster, we either see what's happening and, if we care about people, both care about and act accordingly -- or we don't see what's happening, or at least don't fully understand the consequences of inaction. It's not more complicated than that. You may very well have some psychological disorder, but based on what you've said so far I think it's much more clear you're just ignorant.

Answer me this: What do you think will happen if we do nothing about rising emissions? If we allow emissions to rise unabated, burning as much coal, oil, and gas as we want? Do you think it'll have any impact at all? For better or worse? And why do you believe it?

Which is why I suggest learning a little more about it rather than going with your feels.
— Mikie

That is exactly what you are doing. — AmadeusD

No, it's what you want me to be doing because you don't know anything about the science. Hence you have to continually pull the discussion into feelings and intuitions, where you have a shot at bullshitting your way through. I'm not interested in that. The facts are pretty clear, and they're worth learning about:

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2865/a-degree-of-concern-why-global-temperatures-matter/

But Mikie, what of the thousands of German and Japanese children who died in WWII bombing campaigns? A horrible crime, right? — BitconnectCarlos

Yes indeed.

Clearly the allies should have never used air power. — BitconnectCarlos

By all means use air power. Just don't use air power to kill innocent women or children. German, Japanese, or otherwise.

Best to be pacifists and let the Germans have their way. I'm no child killer. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm not a pacifist.

So Hamas had every right to deliberately kill innocent people on October 7th, since the innocents' government maintains concentration camps and conducts terrorist campaigns? Yeah, I don't accept that. Innocent people shouldn't be killed -- even if Hamas can give a better reason than Likud can.

“Poisoning the blood.”

Yeah, nothing racist here guys. Just more liberal media putting Hitler’s rhetoric into his mouth.

Oh wait…he actually said that.