What's new
  • This thread contains opinions and information that likely IS NOT ACCURATE. Do your own research on such an important topic on a site other than JazzFanz.com, please.

Joe Rogan's Podcast


Al-O-Meter

Well-Known Member
70 years is a totally inadequate amount of time to understand almost anything. But especially inadequate if you want to understand climate.
That would be news to Ben Santer who was one of the IPCC lead authors. He's got a paper setting that limit at 17 years. I can post the link if you'd like it.
 


NAOS

Well-Known Member
That would be news to Ben Santer who was one of the IPCC lead authors. He's got a paper setting that limit at 17 years. I can post the link if you'd like it.
He’s saying that you can understand the crucial dynamics of the Earth System (and the climate-focused aspect of that) by studying a 17-year interval? Yeah, I’d like to see this mythical paper. Tia.
 

Al-O-Meter

Well-Known Member
He’s saying that you can understand the crucial dynamics of the Earth System (and the climate-focused aspect of that) by studying a 17-year interval? Yeah, I’d like to see this mythical paper. Tia.
Seriously?!? I was trying to be funny with the "I can post the link if you'd like it". This is one of the most famous papers in climate science done by one of the most widely respected climate scientists in the field

As one Jazz fan to another, I've put the link below. Read it, remember it, and pretend you knew of it all along because not knowing this paper is embarrassing for anyone claiming to have followed climate science.

 

NAOS

Well-Known Member
Seriously?!? I was trying to be funny with the "I can post the link if you'd like it". This is one of the most famous papers in climate science done by one of the most widely respected climate scientists in the field

As one Jazz fan to another, I've put the link below. Read it, remember it, and pretend you knew of it all along because not knowing this paper is embarrassing for anyone claiming to have followed climate science.

Trust me, I’m laughing too. Would you mind reiterating the conclusions you’ve drawn from this paper? The stage is all yours.

It’s Santer et al., btw.
 
Last edited:

LogGrad98

Well-Known Member
Contributor
2020-21 Award Winner
You’re smart enough to find your way to good sources of information on this. And smart enough to avoid the overly sensational.

We’re already in the midst of species losses welllllllll beyond background extinction rates for several different families of organisms. Biodiversity losses are real and serious.
Unfortunately burgeoning human population accounts for far more extinctions than climate change. At least so far. Just us existing has driven thousands of species extinct. If that's the concern then lower human populations in general is better for the planet.

That's more than a little of the nihilist in me talking tbh.
 

LogGrad98

Well-Known Member
Contributor
2020-21 Award Winner
You’re smart enough to find your way to good sources of information on this. And smart enough to avoid the overly sensational.

We’re already in the midst of species losses welllllllll beyond background extinction rates for several different families of organisms. Biodiversity losses are real and serious.
As far as overly sensational, well that's apparently in the eye of the beholder. Even NPR has entertained guests espousing the position that climate change means imminent human demise, and not from the standpoint of point/counterpoint, more as forgone conclusion. It's pretty well-ingrained into the climate change ethos at this point.
 

NAOS

Well-Known Member
Unfortunately burgeoning human population accounts for far more extinctions than climate change. At least so far. Just us existing has driven thousands of species extinct. If that's the concern then lower human populations in general is better for the planet.

That's more than a little of the nihilist in me talking tbh.
You seem to make a distinction between “burgeoning human population” and the dynamics driving “climate change”. Maybe I’m mistaken. But, you can’t untangle the two.
 

NAOS

Well-Known Member
As far as overly sensational, well that's apparently in the eye of the beholder. Even NPR has entertained guests espousing the position that climate change means imminent human demise, and not from the standpoint of point/counterpoint, more as forgone conclusion. It's pretty well-ingrained into the climate change ethos at this point.
Some of the scenarios are pretty bleak. A 4-degree C scenario by 2100 is on-the-table, and that would be massively catastrophic. I don’t think you can look at those models, take note of the degree of confidence and probability that the scientific community has in them, and then report back to the uninitiated with dulcet tones. **** is serious; and that’s just a fact.
 

NAOS

Well-Known Member
Has Al-O left the building? How’d he get out from the corner he’d backed himself into?
 

LogGrad98

Well-Known Member
Contributor
2020-21 Award Winner
You seem to make a distinction between “burgeoning human population” and the dynamics driving “climate change”. Maybe I’m mistaken. But, you can’t untangle the two.
Well, humans moving into ecosystems have been driving species extinct presumably since we developed civilization. Thousands of years maybe? Climate change has been affecting species extinction over what time frame? 50 years? They are tangentially-related but not inextricably linked to our effect on other species. Let's just say it's (climate change) a factor currently, among the many other factors that we affect that can drive species extinct. Such as feral housecats which have driven dozens of bird species extinct over the last 100 years alone, and that problem is almost entirely anthropogenic in nature.

Humans are destructive by nature. Agent Smith wasn't far off in his assessment of humans in the Matrix. We consume and destroy. I don't think it's very arguable that the planet as a whole would be better off with far fewer humans, and even better with none at all.

For the record, mother nature has driven far more species extinct than we ever will, unless we get to a nuclear winter scenario.

I just really doubt climate change is the nuclear winter.
 

NAOS

Well-Known Member
Well, humans moving into ecosystems have been driving species extinct presumably since we developed civilization. Thousands of years maybe? Climate change has been affecting species extinction over what time frame? 50 years? They are tangentially-related but not inextricably linked to our effect on other species. Let's just say it's (climate change) a factor currently, among the many other factors that we affect that can drive species extinct. Such as feral housecats which have driven dozens of bird species extinct over the last 100 years alone, and that problem is almost entirely anthropogenic in nature.

Humans are destructive by nature. Agent Smith wasn't far off in his assessment of humans in the Matrix. We consume and destroy. I don't think it's very arguable that the planet as a whole would be better off with far fewer humans, and even better with none at all.

For the record, mother nature has driven far more species extinct than we ever will, unless we get to a nuclear winter scenario.

I just really doubt climate change is the nuclear winter.
I recommend Ellis’ book Anthropocene: a very short introduction. It’s excellent, and would definitely iron out some of your clunky distinctions. Humans have indeed massively accelerated in their impact of the Earth System in the last 70 years—and, yes, humans have been driving ecosystemic changes for much longer than that. But leaving Holocene conditions is a significant moment in that story. And there are mannnnnnny reasons to suspect nonlinear changes in the Earth system now that we have.


Let me put it to you this way (I think I can say this frankly, since you and I have a rapport): I can tell by the way that you’re framing your rationale that you would benefit by looking further into the science. From my seat, your doubts sound precisely like a psychological defense strategy (it isn’t an uncommon one, fwiw).


Human-induced climate change doesn’t need to become the “nuclear winter”.... whatever that means..... but it could, in fact, be as bad as a nuclear winter (something that can cause massive crop shortages for 2-5 years and cause serious ****ing problems). There’s no doubting the serious probabilities of that when you study the science.
 

Top