Yeah but deaths are still the most unambiguous, the thing that inadequate testing and controls are least likely to hide. A lot of hidden infection would appear at least some death - several days I pointed to mortality rates as the biggest marker for areas where infection would spike. I am not happy to be right about this since this awful however you cut it but there you are.
The Bell Curve has been thoroughly debunked I believe. Genetics aren't nearly as important as environment for IQ scores, as proven by adopted children.
A few things to bear in mind, race is far more of a cultural construct than a genetic one. Compared to other species we don't show much genetic variation, and people of African descent are much more genetically diverse than the rest of humanity. Another is that IQs have been rising steadily around the world, proof that environmental factors such as nutrition and education have a a large effect.
On the other side of the world, we had record temperatures across Europe as well this year. Fewer deaths than the 2003 heatwave though as people were generally better informed of the risks.
For the record - only in Western Europe - due to changes in circulation patterns. Central and Eastern Europe had rather cool summer and records from beggining of XX century still stand.
Historical civilisations were very vulnerable to changes in local climate as they were heavily reliant on local food production, whereas we routinely ship food across oceans. Events like the [Little Ice Age](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age) barely show up in the global climate record.
Earth's climate has varied greatly over time but its the current rate of change that is so alarming. During the last ice age it was about 4.5 degrees colder but it took 10,000 years to reach modern temperatures. We're currently on a path to changes of that magnitude within the next 70-100 years.
You're incorrect about your assumptions. If you click the link in the parent post, you'll see that temperatures swung as much as 8C during the ice age. These events are called Dansgaard-Oeschger events (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansgaard%E2%80%93Oeschger_eve...) The warming would happen rapidly (within 3 decades), followed by a stepped down cooling period (often lasting hundreds of years). This happened repeatedly during the most recent glacial.
And then more recently, after the last glacial period had ended, you had incidents like the Younger Dryas, for example, where temps plunged to near ice age levels (up to 6C drop in a few decades) and then rapidly warmed all of a sudden. If you read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas) some are suggesting that a warming episode at the end of the Younger Dryas occurred in as little as a few years and warmed global temps by 7C.
"But there have been several times in Earth’s past when Earth's temperature jumped rapidly, in much the same way as they are doing today. Those times were caused by large and rapid greenhouse gas emissions, just like humans are causing today. In Earth's past the trigger for these greenhouse gas emissions was often unusually massive volcanic eruptions known as “Large Igneous Provinces,” with knock-on effects that included huge releases of CO2 and methane from organic-rich sediments. But there is no Large Igneous Province operating today, or anytime in the last 16 million years. Today’s volcanoes, in comparison, don’t even come close to emitting the levels of greenhouse gasses that humans do.
Those rapid global warming events were almost always highly destructive for life, causing mass extinctions such as at the end of the Permian, Triassic, or even mid-Cambrian periods. The symptoms from those events (huge and rapid carbon emissions, a big rapid jump in global temperatures, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, widespread oxygen-starved zones in the oceans) are all happening today with human-caused climate change. The outcomes for life on Earth were often dire. The end Permian extinction saw around 90% of species go extinct, and it left tropical regions on the planet lethally hot, too hot for complex life to survive. The Triassic extinction was another, one of the 5 biggest mass extinctions in the geological record. Even in the end Cretaceous extinction, in which dinosaurs were finally wiped out by an asteroid impact, a major global-warming extinction event was already underway causing a major extinction within 150,000 years of the impact. That global warming 66 million years ago was due to catastrophic eruptions in India, which emitted a pulse of CO2 that sent global temperatures soaring by 7°C (13°F).
So yes, the climate has changed before, and in most cases scientists know why. In all cases we see the same association between CO2 levels and global temperatures. And past examples of rapid carbon emissions offer no comfort at all for the likely outcome from today’s climate change."
> ...you'll see that temperatures swung as much as 8C during the ice age. The last glacial period itself covers some 100,000 years.
I could have phrased it better, I'm talking about the temperature difference between the end of the last age and the current day.
> ...Dansgaard-Oeschger events
The recorded temperature swings are local rather than global, global temperature does not rise by five degrees in a matter of decades unless something catastrophic happens.
> There's thousands of papers on the Little Ice Age. It certainly shows up all over the world in the fossil record.
Yes, but average global temperatures were barely affected.
Thats why I hate these Greta style "climate activists", since they only focus on climate, as if thats the only bad shit going on concerning environment. And even so, they are wrong about "apocalypse" style of events.
Even if you solve atmospheric conditions, CO2 and temperature, still you have the pollution of the waters, mass extinctions due to habitat loss, car-tyres rubbering off everywhere, unknown untested toxins even on your cloths. Thats like, not talked about.
EDIT: Cant believe somebody downvoted you. Yes nature has done fast changes, faster than human-induced change currently, and "nature" has mass-exterminated most of its life several times over, and other forms of life caused the deaths and biological disaster for most of other life on earth as well. These are facts.
Somehow these Greata climate activists, would like to believe that humans are more powerful in their destruction than cyanobacteria. Wishful thinking really.
Your argument being? That human-induced global warming affecting the life of millions, potentially billions of people, should be ignored because worse has happened in Earth's history? Because humans also adversely affect different parameters of the environment?
Also, it is easy to pinpoint this issue to a little girl from Sweden, but unfortunately she is just repeating the general scientific consensus. Harder to argue against that, is it?
I'm beginning to think that countering illogical arguments with logical ones is actually some kind of tactical error in many situations - I have no idea what the alternative is but I increasingly feel that it is too easy to goad people (particularly those with some kind of scientific training) into types of arguments that really don't resonate with a lot of people.
> Your argument being? That human-induced global warming affecting the life of millions, potentially billions of people, should be ignored because worse has happened in Earth's history? Because humans also adversely affect different parameters of the environment?
No.
My argument is, fuck the climatists, and their self-good crusade, since its not good, and their suggested solutions would actually cause more poverty and hurt poor people more.
My argument is, the rich are the problem, not pollution per se. 0.1% of the world population can pollute and destroy the environment of the rest. They can even ensalve the rest without destroying the environment.
Thats where the problem lies, oppression of the very few on the many, thats the problem we need to solve. The "climate atmospherists" are a side-show, stealing the light from the real issues.
EDIT: scientific consensus
Im not arguing against sci consensus, this climate issue is not "science" its politics, and should be treated as such. Everything is politics, remember that.
What makes you think she doesn’t care about other aspects of the environment? She’s just focusing on climate change because it has an effect on all of those things too.
Thats not my argument, if you listen carefully to all climatists, they are trying to reduce the scope of the issue down to CO2.
They are trying to use soft means like climate meetings and "targets of CO2", instead of spurring eco terrorism and beginning violence to save the planet. Thats a terrible path to take, to just "lets hold each others hands and sign really nice and come to a solution".
When the problem is caused by the same oppressive relationships now as it was 2000 years ago - slavery, and can only be solved with violence.
> Even if you solve atmospheric conditions, CO2 and temperature, still you have the pollution of the waters, mass extinctions due to habitat loss, car-tyres rubbering off everywhere, unknown untested toxins even on your cloths. Thats like, not talked about.
Have you been living under a rock? They're talked about all the time.
No, my opinion does not benefit fossil fuel industry, my opinion is - we should burn the gas stations to the ground, stick a potato up every SUV you see, toss tyre-destructing spikes on every road.
Kidnap CEOs of the fossil fuel industry, and citizen-jail Monsanto managers, you know... disruption.
The fossil fuel industry is not inherently bad. You understand that prior to the invention of the internal combustion engines and electricity, the world was a really rough place. Life expectancy has more than doubled in the last 120 years. And natural disasters aren't even in the top 50 ways to die in 2019. A 100 years ago, more than a million people a year were dying from natural disasters. Last year, it was 11,000 worldwide. That is despite the human population going up 8x in that timeframe. It is not the crisis that people are hyping it up to be.
The risk is not only from natural disasters directly, but the changes in habitability that show up as a result, and the refugee flows and resource wars that are expected to happen.
“Even if you solve atmospheric conditions, CO2 and temperature, still you have the pollution of the waters, mass extinctions due to habitat loss, car-tyres rubbering off everywhere, unknown untested toxins even on your cloths. Thats like, not talked about.”
This is how I know you've never engaged seriously with climate activists. These things are definitely talked about.
Agreed, I think there's bigger problems than mild warming. As far as I can tell, mild warming is usually good for the human race and for ecological health, such as plant growth.
For example, leaf area index has increased by 8% since the 80s. CO2 is fertilizing plant growth.
This is a common denialist point and is unfortunately a massive oversimplification, there is a hard limit to this increase. Plants are limited by far more than co2
There's a good deal of observation bias at play here.
We currently track the "average annual daily global mean temperature" to somewhere around 4 digits of precision, with an accuracy of around 3 digits of precision (back in the day my university TAs would fail any lab report with inverse precision like that, but I'm no PhD in climate science), and with a time frame of hours. Estimated historic temperatures are presented with 2 or 3 digits of precision over a timeframe of centuries or kiloyears.
Saying current trends are unprecedented is motivational and technically correct, but not scientifically sound given the actual data. Well, science as in hard sciences like chemistry and physics in which we could run controlled experiments to generate confidence in our understanding; not soft sciences like economics or nutrition where controlled experiments would be unethical and results are only as good as the next product you're selling.
My point is that you can see the current short-term trends because we have precision and accuracy to be able to do that. We lack the precision and accuracy of historical data to be able to do that, which makes it an argumentum ad ignorantiam.
All informed decision making is made on the basis of probabilities. You're setting an impossibly and arbitrarily high threshold for action on climate change.
The burden of proof is on you to explain how CO2 levels not seen for 3 million years won't have a major impact on the biosphere.
