Uhoh, now you're dipping into the epistemological precautionary principle. I've no particular issue with that, but I would point to associated costs, particularly with respect to different solutions-based approaches, be they mitigation or adaptation.
Our climate is indeed a complex coupled system, but it is not unbounded. There are forces and feedbacks at play that we simply cannot quantify - and many we know of but don't even consider. You really do need to ask, if a model comes to the right conclusion but via the wrong path, how much trust should you consent to place in it to steer your future?
Only questions, and at least for me somewhat rhetorical, sorry.
Gutholz, I recommend using more correct phrasing, otherwise we can reach a lot of strange conclusions that way.
You realize that this statement is unprecedented and too broad? And it's too easy to disprove. It makes me wonder how you make such claim.
I'll start by assuming that since we're talking about global warming, we're talking about the earth. (although your statement doesn't specify that)
And if we are saying that the "earth never before have temperatures changed so rapidly" then why do you provide a link to graph that only account for 22,000 years?
The Earth has been around for billions of years, and you're saying "never before have temperatures changed so rapidly".
For example, researchers consider that Dino-Killing Asteroid Impact Warmed Earth's Climate about 4.5- to 5-degree [C, or 8.1 to 9 degrees F] change in average temperature for 100,000 Years.
This change is higher than it is now. Therefore, your statement is incorrect.
But I hope you just worded your thought incorrectly and meant the last 20,000 years, which I can agree with. But 20k years is nothing compared to the entire history of the earth.
And that's even worse.. Your linked article contrasts human emissions only with volcanic emissions. No other non-human emissions are in question there.
And you refer to my quote where I talk about the comparison of human emissions and all non-human emissions. And for all non-human emissions you substitute volcanic activity, which is a clear substitution of the thesis.
Even if we're only talking about carbon dioxide emissions (and there's a lot more going into greenhouse gases) there 42.84 percent of all naturally produced carbon dioxide emissions come from ocean-atmosphere exchange. Other important natural sources include plant and animal respiration (28.56%) as well as soil respiration and decomposition (28.56%).4 16 A minor amount is also created by volcanic eruptions (0.03%).
Source: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
You substituted all non-human emissions for less than 0.03% non-human emissions and passed it off as what I'm asking for. That's not correct.
It's me jumping the gun, I think, but there are many responses to the presence of uncertainty or an unpredictable future. There are schools of thought that, the very fact that we don't know future outcomes means that we must immediately prepare for the worst.
This has been the refrain of most climate policy advocates with whom I have locked horns. The strength of their arguments invariably rests in their gut feelings. But for them this is more than enough. Enough for them to be filled with fear, and enough for them to use every trick in the book to convince others to share in their fear as well.
I think for many it is an autonomic response when presented with uncertainty, and I am sympathetic. These are people who experience feelings of dread when they pass by an open basement door. That feeling of dread will not itself manifest ghouls, though. Or indeed, the "bogeyman" as you put it very early on.
No problem, and it's exactly the kind of principle I can support if it's an existential threat to humanity. You can see where I defend this in another thread. But right now I don't see how global warming can be an existential threat to humanity, even if the bad scenarios of current predictions come true.
For the record, I too support consideration and possible application of the precautionary principle, but with the caveat that this be strictly in an environment which isn't susceptible to manipulation of data to support a particular outcome.
[edit] and I agree, too, that the bad scenarios (which have been vastly: a) moderated/walked back in IPCC AR6; b) under-reported) don't imply catastrophe to the planet or to humans.
For your complete information.
The greatest global warming dates back 56 million years. The Earth has experienced a global increase in temperatures of 5° to 6° over a period of 200,000 years. We are very far from the current situation... and see what the consequences were.
This article discusses the problem with using the deficiencies in low resolution proxy data as a false argument for implausible and alarmist conclusions about recent warming.
You obviously still haven't understood what "temporality" means, and the reference to the Little Ice Age is still not relevant.
Refer to the link above in my last post to understand what the scientific world means by “disaster”. You will perhaps finally understand why living species will not be able to adapt to such sudden warming, not to mention the societal consequences.
Avraham, I posted a link to an article and a precis of what the article discusses. You make yet more leaps of logic and profess to know what I understand or don't understand. I'm not interested in feeding your logical fallacies with attention. Stop trolling.
What is not plausible? That I can read? Or that your sources inevitably bring us back to the same clichés like "the Little Ice Age", which is still discussed in your article? Shouldn't you know, at the stage we are at, that this epiphenomenon means nothing in the debate we are having? Why make infinite loops to constantly return to the same insignificances and the same confusions? Who is trolling here SamH?
Avraham also provides access to information that you could consult? Why not ? We all live on the same planet (well almost). This information matters more than who publishes it. You can be sure of that.
Unless your only motivation is to do something to close this topic, as always?
I am more interested in your opinion on global warming, its real reality, the scientific analysis made of it and the solutions within our reach to minimize its impact, than in your puns.
As far as I'm concerned, the answer is clear, I'm not here for speed. For a set of reasons that have nothing to do with this debate. And which I have already explained here in detail (most of my posts concern the game, if that's what you're wondering about?). I play for fun. In conditions unsuitable for online.
Current solar activity does not support this hypothesis. Even if you are right, this hypothesis is scientifically debated.
The problem is that current solar activity and the magnification of the sun have opposite effects to those that would lead to an increase in Earth's temperature. In fact, the Sun, even though it is getting bigger, is less active and radiates less energy. This invalidates the hypothesis of global warming linked to solar activity. You will easily find articles on this subject.
As for the natural cycles to which you refer, they have nothing to do with the temporality of current global warming. If you refer to the last link I posted, you will see that the most significant recent warming occurred 56 million years ago. The Earth has warmed by 5 to 6° over a period of 200,000 years. Current global warming follows the temporal curve of human activities. Such rapid warming has never occurred on Earth. And climate models demonstrate that without human activity, we would only experience natural global warming, the pace, and gradualness of which would threaten neither nature nor humanity.
