This is a good, simple rebuttal for those that like to talk about dinosaurs 66 million years ago and CO2 being good for plants. Unfortunately, some people will do anything to avoid embracing frightening truths.
One of the things that study - www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adk3705 - revealed most clearly is the deep and abiding relationship of global temperatures to CO2 - showing a (deeply alarming) climate sensitivity MUCH higher than most climate scientists are concluding - ~8C for a doubling of CO2. Let us hope, fervently, that the climate scientists are closer to the mark with ~3C. And 3C, not taken seriously enough - or at all by those holding the highest Offices of trust, where the clearest duty of care as well as the greatest capabilities of science, analysis, planning and funding is - is likely to be disastrous.
I encountered that graph as 'evidence' that Earth is an especially cool period and therefore warming is not a big deal. That it was quite a bit cooler for most of the time homo sapiens has existed - the glacial minimum Holocene being quite warm in comparison - wasn't mentioned. Nor that the Holocene was (definitely past tense now) a period of exceptional climate stability during which humans thrived like never before and that rapid change of climate does enormous harms to the species around at the time.
A climate state that is stable, that doesn't change much is 'the best'. 'The warmer the better' is pure denialist delusion. If any climate state could be considered 'best for humans' it was the pre-industrial Holocene and for most of half a billion years it was not.
As for warming preventing the end of this unusual glacial maxima and the onset of global cooling - saving the world from the next 'ice age' - enough warming for that was probably achieved early last century, but the increase of sulfate aerosols that came with accelerating fossil fuel use masked it, giving the outward appearance (bare global average temperatures) that not much was changing when it had already changed a lot. Sulfates even managed to make global cooling look like the human made climate problem of greatest significance for a time - although even then not showing enough 'cooling' to offset the accumulated warming up till then.
The speed of change point is really important. No honest person can ignore this evidence.
And that doesn't even take into account the direct climate problems, we are causing, such as polluted rivers, forced drought, floods etc. due to deforestation and so much more.
In my last Livestream, in the environmental category, we looked at a report that came out last week, showing how deforestation has caused I think 20,000,000 deaths in the last 20 years. (I forgot but the numbers are close to that)
I was aware of a lot of this, except how recently the climate became farming friendly. Am I reading this right that up until, say, 20,000 years ago, grain based agriculture would have been impossible because it was too hot (and dry?). Fascinating. Thank you
It motivates me to recommend that we start talking about habitat longevity, rather than climate change.
Habitats in which humans can practice large scale, irrigated grain agriculture have not existed for more than a few tens of thousands of years. But we need them continue, if we want to continue.
This is a good, simple rebuttal for those that like to talk about dinosaurs 66 million years ago and CO2 being good for plants. Unfortunately, some people will do anything to avoid embracing frightening truths.
Yes, good article.
One of the things that study - www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adk3705 - revealed most clearly is the deep and abiding relationship of global temperatures to CO2 - showing a (deeply alarming) climate sensitivity MUCH higher than most climate scientists are concluding - ~8C for a doubling of CO2. Let us hope, fervently, that the climate scientists are closer to the mark with ~3C. And 3C, not taken seriously enough - or at all by those holding the highest Offices of trust, where the clearest duty of care as well as the greatest capabilities of science, analysis, planning and funding is - is likely to be disastrous.
I encountered that graph as 'evidence' that Earth is an especially cool period and therefore warming is not a big deal. That it was quite a bit cooler for most of the time homo sapiens has existed - the glacial minimum Holocene being quite warm in comparison - wasn't mentioned. Nor that the Holocene was (definitely past tense now) a period of exceptional climate stability during which humans thrived like never before and that rapid change of climate does enormous harms to the species around at the time.
A climate state that is stable, that doesn't change much is 'the best'. 'The warmer the better' is pure denialist delusion. If any climate state could be considered 'best for humans' it was the pre-industrial Holocene and for most of half a billion years it was not.
As for warming preventing the end of this unusual glacial maxima and the onset of global cooling - saving the world from the next 'ice age' - enough warming for that was probably achieved early last century, but the increase of sulfate aerosols that came with accelerating fossil fuel use masked it, giving the outward appearance (bare global average temperatures) that not much was changing when it had already changed a lot. Sulfates even managed to make global cooling look like the human made climate problem of greatest significance for a time - although even then not showing enough 'cooling' to offset the accumulated warming up till then.
The speed of change point is really important. No honest person can ignore this evidence.
And that doesn't even take into account the direct climate problems, we are causing, such as polluted rivers, forced drought, floods etc. due to deforestation and so much more.
In my last Livestream, in the environmental category, we looked at a report that came out last week, showing how deforestation has caused I think 20,000,000 deaths in the last 20 years. (I forgot but the numbers are close to that)
I was aware of a lot of this, except how recently the climate became farming friendly. Am I reading this right that up until, say, 20,000 years ago, grain based agriculture would have been impossible because it was too hot (and dry?). Fascinating. Thank you
I believe it was actually the end of the last ice age. Grains and flowering fruits had better conditions to evolve and thrive.
Basic climate science education is so important. It’s really easy to manipulate people who don’t understand for themselves.
This part of the climate story is so important.
It motivates me to recommend that we start talking about habitat longevity, rather than climate change.
Habitats in which humans can practice large scale, irrigated grain agriculture have not existed for more than a few tens of thousands of years. But we need them continue, if we want to continue.