[flagged]
Yes, the rate of change is way too fast, comparable to a meteorite or volcano eruption, except there aren't
Rising Temperatures in the Netherlands
11–20 of 85 posts
Re: Rising Temperatures in the Netherlands
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure yeah, or we could accept the settled science and move on to fixing the problem before the ice caps are gone and frozen methane hydrates vent from the ocean and kill much of the globe.
What? Of course we should! It is of course partially caused by humanity. But it’s a common debate among researchers exactly how much the trends are affecting the changes.
It's a legitimate question, but I can't tell if you're wondering whether we have significant influence on it at all, or if you are just wondering what fraction the solar cycle being at its maximum ~now (iirc) and other such effects are (which I imagine is no more than a few percent, since previous ones are not immediately apparent in the visualization of the previous 10k-odd years (https://xkcd.com/1732/); or even if we're only a tiny fraction on top of nature's mechanisms, that's apparently 'that much' too much greenhouse gases)
Re: Rising Temperatures in the Netherlands
#13[flagged]
> And finally, what if we’re exiting an ice age (we are still technically in one)?
Yes we are living in an ice age, which began 3 million years ago. We are currently in a warm interglacial that started 11,000 years ago.
Re: Rising Temperatures in the Netherlands
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure yeah, or we could accept the settled science and move on to fixing the problem before the ice caps are gone and frozen methane hydrates vent from the ocean and kill much of the globe.
If history has taught us anything, the idea of "settled science" is as anti science as it comes.
Asimov has refuted this argument more eloquently than I could here: https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dbalmer/eportfolio/Nature%20of%20...
Re: Rising Temperatures in the Netherlands
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m pretty sure the only anomalies that have ever produced geographic temperature changes as drastic as the ones visualized are things like city-sized asteroid collisions or volcanic eruptions that blot out the sun. If you haven’t noticed any of those, then it’s probably safe to assume that approximately 100% of the effect is down to human activity.
That’s a faulty statement! https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Ummm…
> There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause.
That’s the sub-headline from your link which is exactly what I said, just with a bit less flourish.
Re: Rising Temperatures in the Netherlands
#16[flagged]
Extremely rapidly, and it is wholly unprecedented in the geological record[0]. At this point, expressing curiosity about this rather than putting forth the trivial effort to find the amply available high-quality evidence is difficult to read as anything other than bad faith.
[0]https://phys.org/news/2021-11-global-temperatures-years-toda...
Re: Rising Temperatures in the Netherlands
#17Does this account for the urban heat island effect?
Re: Rising Temperatures in the Netherlands
#18[flagged]
Your first two "questions" have been answered, IIRC. A bit of duckduckgoing will e.g. lead you to https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3071/the-r.... Same for solar cycles.
The data is not perfect, but unfortunately, there's no escape from the conclusion: we have to act, and we've already missed targets.
Re: Rising Temperatures in the Netherlands
#19[flagged]
> What if our interments for measuring temperature were improving over the last century?
Thermometers have been around pretty much unchanged for a long time. We don't need particularly high precision measurement for an overall trend on the measurement scale of tenths of degrees Celsius.
> What if the locations of the measurements changed slightly?
Then we'd expect momentary level and trend shifts whenever the location changes.
> And finally, what if we’re exiting an ice age (we are still technically in one)?
We are, but much much faster than would occur without human activity.
Re: Rising Temperatures in the Netherlands
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure yeah, or we could accept the settled science and move on to fixing the problem before the ice caps are gone and frozen methane hydrates vent from the ocean and kill much of the globe.
If history has taught us anything, the idea of "settled science" is as anti science as it comes.
Correct words, but blatantly misleading as a concept.
As an example: sure, Einstein found in the 1900s that Newton's theory of gravity from the 1600s was wrong, but it's wrong to such a degree that it doesn't matter for everyday applications and we still use and teach Newton's law of universal gravitation because it's a very good approximation with a very simple formula. If we had based the mechanism of climate change on the "faulty" formula and adjusted our emissions based on that, then found out that it's incorrect to the same degree, we'd have been so close to the truth that it would have worked out perfectly (to well within the error margins of global measurements).
The point of science is that it's about testable predictions. You can say "if I drop a mass from 1m height at sea level in a vacuum chamber, it will impact the surface after 0.10204 seconds" and then go and measure that and you can find that it's right to within your measurement's error margins. We've been doing the same for climate mechanisms and a whole host of other things. If the scientific method didn't work, we couldn't have reliable vehicles, let alone airplanes or useful GPS results.
Don't let yourself be mislead by attention-grabbing headlines of "scientists found out they were wrong all along" which we see all too often. Read the article if it's from an otherwise good source, or click through to the source if it's not, and make up your own mind