Huh, it must be really frustrating to actually be a climate scientist.
@htimsxela why, because of governments misusing your work to push their agenda or of climate scepticist that won't listen what you have to say because they're overreacting to the brainwash? 😃
@Sosthene @htimsxela
This is something I *really* don't understand. Essentially all scientists agree that man-made climate change is real.
Yet there are a bunch of people (you too?) who (try to) deny that.
I 'understand' that the Koch brothers and fossil fuel cos want to try it as it affects their business interest
Effectively, I'm having a hard time seeing the difference between climate skeptics and anti-vaxxers.
Even if you're skeptic, do you disagree with Elon Musk and if so, why?
@Sosthene @htimsxela
Feel free to disregard the anti-vaxxers comment as it probably didn't help in establishing a useful discussion
@FreePietje @Sosthene
Oh, I certainly don't side with the skeptics, I'm astonished anyone could argue that dumping huge amount of GHG into the atmosphere won't have any affect. You don't need to perfectly model the environment to understand the physical chemistry involved.
Even if we don't know the outcome with certainty, a simple risk analysis would seem to favour extreme caution in the face of such an existential threat.
@FreePietje @Sosthene
My post was spurred by seeing various bitcoin social media stars on Twitter pigheadedly challenge the idea of climate change: it must be frustrating to be an expert in the field, and see the uninformed stating their opinions as fact.
The sort of free market libertarianism that many bitcoiners love is utterly ineffective in dealing with a tragedy of the commons of such scale. You can't privatize air, so I guess the next best thing is to just deny it? Very disingenuous
@htimsxela @FreePietje @htimsxela @FreePietje ok there are so many things to say about this, I'd need much more time than I have right now and the microblog format isn't appropriate at all. Unfortunately the debate about climate change has ceased to be a scientific debate for a while now, and is almost entirely political, and scientists have no more authority in the later than anyone else.
@htimsxela @FreePietje ok to finish my rant, I guess the root of the disagreement here is that you accept the terms of the deal as it is put today (i.e. do as we say or we're all doom), and I don't. I think this dilemma is a fallacy, has nothing to do with the scientific debate about human influence on climate, and is the oldest dirty trick in the political book ("me or chaos")
@Sosthene
I think it wouldn't be a bad idea for you to get a bit more informed. Many numbers about human climate influence were presented many years ago and have not been challenged by deniers even.
We focus on CO2 instead of methane and water vapor because it has a delayed effect and it's been skyrocketing ever since we've seen the delayed effect from the industrial revolution.
@htimsxela @FreePietje
@stevenroose @Sosthene @htimsxela @FreePietje do we even know if rising temps cause higher co2 or its the opposite ?
@vbhide @stevenroose @Sosthene @FreePietje
CO2 absorbs solar energy through vibrational modes, which basically means it heats up, as it doesn't release the energy as quickly as it is absorbed.
The global climate system is very complex though, making it very difficult to create accurate predictions. There are variables that act as buffers, others that act as positive feedback loops, and everything in between. Whether the global temp goes up or down is a valid question, but difficult to answer.
@vbhide @stevenroose @Sosthene @FreePietje
That said, even without exact predictions, it is simple logic that stark changes to the system will disrupt the equilibrium. This much is widely accepted in the scientific community, I think you would be hard pressed to find a scientist working in the field who believes that things won't change.
So what will we wager on our ability to thrive in the new equilibrium? We know the current system supports us, it seems prudent to take steps to preserve this
@htimsxela @stevenroose @Sosthene @FreePietje on Co2 to the best of my knowledge the historical charts show a rise in temps occurring BEFORE a rise in Co2 levels. Idk how to interpret that though.
@stevenroose @htimsxela @Sosthene @FreePietje see this : https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming/
Its not disputed that temp can rise before co2, though interpretations vary
@vbhide
I didn't read the article, but looking at the graph, it looks like the temperature always either rises after the co2 or at the same time (oresision of the graph lacks clarity in that case). Doesn't it?
@htimsxela @Sosthene @FreePietje
@stevenroose @htimsxela @Sosthene @FreePietje id seen some other graphs from sceptics (maybe focusing on that exact period hence clearer). The article i sent you is from the warming camp but they do accept temps went up before co2 at the end of the ice age.
