Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Rear-gunner OP t1_j3rehbd wrote

Reply to comment by speedywilfork in Controversial Proposal to Reduce Global Warming Could Threaten Ozone Regeneration by Rear-gunner

I remember it well. At the time, people were saying that we were lucky that pollution kept the temperature up.

Still, currently, it is a fact that the world is getting hotter, but the cause is disputed. Mind you. Another good argument is that an increase in temperature would benefit mankind.

−1

Human_Anybody7743 t1_j3rib14 wrote

"People" here being fossil fuel propagandists. You don't get to use your own lies to try and claim the truth is a lie. And there's no legitimate argument on the cause or that higher temperature would be good. The consensus wasn't overwhelming in the 70s but it was by far the majority position since the late 60s

https://miro.medium.com/max/1100/1*jcmooyqbb8mt0qUhRBtwYQ.webp

https://dpiepgrass.medium.com/1970s-agw-consensus-3123a34e5105

11

Rear-gunner OP t1_j3rt6iz wrote

I agree that there is no legimate argument on the cause of global warming.

I personally would prefer my city to be hotter and think that would be good as we would have more time for the beach and going outdoors. So here you have a legimate argument why hotter would be good.

Your own chart shows that in 1971, global cooling was more popular than global warming as a theory.

−10

Human_Anybody7743 t1_j3ruz2l wrote

A single year of increased attention does not a global consensus make -- especially when your set of papers includes one where the author was talking about both warming from CO2 and cooling from aerosols and changed his mind as to which was larger after seeing more evidence. That's almost as stupid a stretch as including any article that contains the word cooling. And I guarantee you don't want the famines, global instability, snap freezes, and storms that go with your wish.

On top of that the 'hur durr them fought it was gunna get cuuld' argument is utterly morally bankrupt anyway.

Both effects are real. Both effects were fairly widely agreed to be significant since the 60s.

Not knowing which was bigger or more permanent and which way fossil fuels were going to fuck everyone isn't a reason that 'stop using fossil fuels' hasn't been the objectively scientifically correct position for the better part of 70 years.

Any sane society would have started the renewable transition in the 40s when wind turbines were first proven viable (or paid attention to the firstcommercial solar panel in 1906) as the risks of aerosols were fairly universally accepted even if CO2 was still up in the air.

9

Rear-gunner OP t1_j3s56oi wrote

IT was not my set of papers but yours. How do you see famine in a hotter world, hotter world=more food production.

−8

Human_Anybody7743 t1_j3s8nlt wrote

> IT was not my set of papers but yours

And it demonstrates the opposite of what you are claiming on multiple levels.

> How do you see famine in a hotter world, hotter world=more food production.

Because desertification, mass floods and giant storms never disrupt food production.

You're clearly not interested in truth or logic here.

10

DeepSpaceNebulae t1_j3sq4ew wrote

Heat allowing plants to grow faster reaches a max pretty quickly followed by a significant drop in efficiency due to moisture loss in the leaves via the stomata (stomata are the small pores in leaves that open to take in C02 and expel O2)

Too hot and the leaves need to become smaller and reduce the amount of CO2 they absorb or else they lose too much water to the air and dry out.

Don’t know why I keep seeing this “it’s better for plants” nonsense. Like claiming a flood is good because it provides everyone water… before drowning them

Also, famine is what you went for? We produce more than enough food right now, it’s distribution that’s the problem. Or will hotter temps allow for easier food distribution?

Edit: To add, it doesn’t matter what the world was like millions of years ago or how animals will adapt… we are adapted for the unusually stable climate of the last few thousand years. Our entire civilization; food production, population distribution, etc; is all based on the current climate. As the climate changes the cost of adapting will become untenable. If the 2 million refugees of the Syrian war was bad, what do you imagine a billion+ climate refugees will be like. There are already population migrations because of climate change, megacities running out of water (dependent on no-longer predictable rains or melted glaciers) rising coastlines, declining seafood stocks, etc. This isn’t going to happen tomorrow, but it will probably be your children and children’s children that will really start to feel its impact

We will adapt, we’re the most adaptable creature that has ever lived, but without doing something now to combat climate change the costs will be unimaginable.

And this may seem doom and gloom… but that’s because it is! We’ve known definitively about this for 50 years and have done nothing. The oil companies themselves discovered this, but chose to bury it and spend billions on misinformation.

4

ialsoagree t1_j3sqknv wrote

How do you figure a hotter world improved food production?

The science showes that under increasing CO2, plants prefer decreasing temperature to grow more biomass. Under both increasing temperature and CO2, plants show no increase, or even a decreased growth of biomass.

3

ialsoagree t1_j3skpey wrote

There is no significant dissent that humans are the cause of the majority of warming since the 1950's. The latest IPCC report puts the certainty at over 99%.

There's no other explanation that can account for the current amount of warming other than human forcing.

3

Rear-gunner OP t1_j3tlr55 wrote

Vague term here significant dissent.

2

ialsoagree t1_j3tmed6 wrote

Sure, more than 90% of climate scientists agree that humans are the largest drivers of climate change and global warming.

1

newest-reddit-user t1_j3xi7xa wrote

The cause is not disputed.

1

Rear-gunner OP t1_j3yvlbv wrote

Mmmmmm have you done a search on the cause, you will find some dispute

1

newest-reddit-user t1_j403oky wrote

It's disputed in the same way that some people think the Earth is flat.

1

Rear-gunner OP t1_j40836v wrote

In my experience, global warming has become politicized, and opinions on its reality vary. Reasoning and technology have not provided a definitive solution to the debate, so a rift exists. Some will argue that the causes of global warming cannot be based on computerized models with their problems but needs real scientific evidence. I have also noticed that much depends on the ocean temperatures, which have yet to be fully measured.

1

newest-reddit-user t1_j41ifaj wrote

It definitely has become politicized. It doesn't follow that there is a reasonable disagreement. If conservatives decided one day that the shape of the Earth was very important for them ideologically, it wouldn't thereby make disagreements about it reasonable.

1

Rear-gunner OP t1_j43kzyy wrote

The shape of the earth can be seen and measured, that cause of global warming cannot be, that is my point

1

newest-reddit-user t1_j45s7qm wrote

We know what happens when the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases. We know that because we know the relevant chemical properties of CO2 that we can measure in the lab and we know how much CO2 there was in the atmosphere the past and what happened. We also know roughly how much CO2 we are releasing into the atmosphere.

It's not complicated, even if the details are.

1

Rear-gunner OP t1_j466ebj wrote

I think you will find that there is dispute over whether it's the CO2 or other gases

1

newest-reddit-user t1_j46ixd9 wrote

What I said does not preclude that there are other greenhouse gases.

1

Rear-gunner OP t1_j46nfzu wrote

There is a dispute about what is the most important for global warming

1