[TherapyforGlencross]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

It was a 7 degree change in Greenland's temperature, not a 7 degree change in global temperature. There was a change in global temperature but it was not 7 degrees. And the cause is more likely to be volcanic activity rather than freshwater melt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas



My question for you is, why are you paying so little attention to the 99.9% of evidence which points to one conclusion, and are scouring history to find the 0.1% of things that might (to the untrained eye) appear to cast some doubt? Why is it so hard for you to accept that the increase in global average temperature since 1880 is the direct result in the dramatic increase in CO2 levels? Why pretend that you know better than the scientists?

Clinging to a prayer that some kind of unanticipated negative feedback will save us, basically equates to playing Russian Roulette with our future as a species. Sure, when you pull the trigger, a bullet might not be in the chamber, and you survive by dumb luck. But is it really the kind of risk you're interested in taking? Really?

And I also don't understand this "stop the doomsday talk" sentiment. If we fail to take appropriate action to adress the climate crisis, then yes the doomsday talk is completely justified. People need to understand the enormity and severity of the trouble our species has gotten itself into. The level of human suffering and death that will be caused in the worst-case climate scenarios, far surpasses the amount that took place under the worst dictatorships in human history - Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. And the anticipation of the upcoming suffering and death is not some random speculation either - it is rooted in an understanding of climate science, human nature, and world politics.

Here's the thing - humans act civilized insofar that they continue to have access to safe water and food... once this goes away, the civility goes away. Anticipating a collapse (either full or partial) of human civilization is not a stretch whatsoever. It's a reasonable thing to predict given that droughts, fires, and floods are already impacting food supplies, drying up fresh water sources, and ravaging portions of the planet. We're headed for WAY worse... the science backs it up.

So no, the "doomsday" talk is not the type of talk that should be shamed and shouted down. If anything, the endless peddling of doubt and complacency is what ought to be shamed. To appropriately address a situation, one must first fully understand it.

And in fact, my message here (as anyone who has been actually been paying attention knows) is the exact opposite of doomerism. Simply put we are screwed if (get it... if) we do not act appropriately and take serious action to sharply cut emissions now and transition to a zero-carbon economy by 2050. But if we DO act responsibly, we can avoid worst-case scenarios and likely avert catastrophe. Or at the very least, we'll stand a fighting chance of averting catastrophe.

Me: "We're on a very bad trajectory. Very bad things will happen to us and our home if we continue on our current course. But there's good news! We still have a chance to avoid the worst consequences if we wise up to the situation, make some sacrifices, and choose a better path forward."

CP: "SHADDAP YOU DOOMMERRRR!!!!!!!"

Actually, the prevailing consensus of the Younger Dryas is freshwater meltpulses. I can link to you many many peer reviewed journals of the research if you so incline and can further explain why it would be meltwater pulses. To state volcanic activity as the main cause of the Younger Dryas is egregious and the theory is still in its infancy. I understand where the theory comes from, in layman’s terms: “when glaciers recede, isostatic rebound occurs” . How do you explain the 8.2kya event? And my apologies, indeed you are correct, it was regional and not global temperature change. I misstated that.

I never once stated that the increase of CO2 wasn’t the cause of global temperature increase. It’s common knowledge of the relationship between the two within geoscience circles. I fully agree that the increase of human-created CO2 since the 1880’s (and especially since the 1950’s if we’re going by the Anthropocene) has caused temperatures to increase. And I am not clinging to negative feedbacks. Edit: let me make it clear: the effects of what we see currently are unchangeable. We are creating a hostile environment. If we can change our ways as a species, we can limit the impacts of climate change. But what we have already emitted, will thankfully be reversed within a millennium so not that much time and quite quick. To me, that gives me hope. But that’s if we can change our ways today without hitting critical greenhouse runaways and/or unintended feedback mechanisms.