
Global warming will happen faster than we think - cardamomo
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07586-5
======
nonbel
Will these people lose any reputation if the possible grand solar minimum
happens?

EDIT:

Also: _" The Lancet Countdown on health and climate change announced last week
that 157 million more people were exposed to heatwave events in 2017, compared
with 2000."_

There are about 1.5 billion more people in 2017 vs 2000, only 10% being
exposed to heat waves seems like a good thing.
[http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-
populati...](http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-
by-year/)

~~~
gameswithgo
No, as that would not have a huge impact on global warming, and it would be a
short term impact at that.

[https://www.skepticalscience.com/grand-solar-minimum-
barely-...](https://www.skepticalscience.com/grand-solar-minimum-barely-dent-
AGW.html)

~~~
nonbel
That page does not address the actual issue. It argues:

> _" We're fortunate that the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth's
> surface is very stable."_

The actual issue is totally different. It has to do with a (supposed) link
between solar magnetic field activity and cloud formation on earth.

Your source is simply irrelevant since it argues against a strawman.

~~~
gameswithgo
As far as I can tell no domain expert thinks that is an actual issue. You are
at this point wondering if a magnetic activity event MIGHT occur in the future
that then MIGHT have some indirect effect on clouds that then might impact
global warming substantively.

We might also get a supervolcano eruption which would cool things for a while!

~~~
nonbel
It all depends on who you call a domain expert. That is a political (in the
general sense), not scientific, term.

------
madaxe_again
Looking at the comments here so far, it is, as ever, the never-ending debate
as to whether climate change is real or not.

I look at this really straightforwardly:

You discover a lump on your skin. It looks like cancer. Do you go to a doctor,
or do you sit at home assuming it’ll all be fine?

What is so wrong with seeking to mitigate risk? Would you sooner wait until
it’s metastatic, and probably going to kill you, or have a potentially
pointless surgery but definitely exclude the possibility of a painful death?

~~~
roenxi
That analogy doesn't speak to me. It brushes over a lot of complexity, infuses
value judgments and trivialises important issues.

1) Global warming is not really comparable to cancer. Cancer is a healthy
system getting disrupted and ending, global warming is simply a system
changing. The type of change threatened by AGW is very scary and expensive,
but the future is going to involve radical change anyway. Deciding what the
change is likely to entail and how many resources to set aside for dealing
with it is an important part of the debate.

2) It appears you are invoking a variant of Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager is
fundamentally unsound. It ignores the fact that we make decisions in a finite
world, and some risks are too small to devote attention to (because there are
an effectively infinite number of trivial risks that we need trivial effort to
deal with, resulting in an infinite demand for finite resources). Resources
are limited, if we did believe that climate change was 'not real', then
devoting anything to motigating it would be unacceptable.

~~~
jhanschoo
If we should change the perspective over from a person to the immune system of
a person, it should be an apt analogy.

Death by cancer is a system changing from an environment hospitable to the
immune system to one extremely hostile to the immune system.

------
SiempreViernes
Amazing how after decades of deterioation broadly along the lines predicted,
people still have time to talk of climate change like it is a political
conspiracy.

------
ghthor
A counter argument is presented here that I encourage everyone to consider.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HntrGv_d8XU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HntrGv_d8XU)

~~~
jhanschoo
The argument here is this: scientists have each identified, in isolation,
various factors that work opposite global warming, and have determined, in
isolation, that these factors, considered individually, cannot balance out
global warming. In video 3, the author identifies natural phenomena that he
says climate models have failed to factor in, such that the effect is that
they far too heavily weigh the impact of humans on the climate.

Unfortunately, the video author makes a failure common to many climate change
skeptics. First, the author failed to make a positive claim with justification
that yes, indeed, the cooling phenomena identified in isolation when
considered holistically counteracts warming. Next, he fails to propose a model
that provides a cause of the extraordinary current increasing trend.

Considering the lack of a positive model, I would still have to accept the
IPCC findings as the most plausible model.

