The IPCC talks about it quite a bit. Since it ended in the 1850s, it means North America has been warming up since then. It's yet another reason we use computer models instead of looking out the window to understand the climate.

Did you happen to look at the graph on the Wikipedia page? Look at what happened to the temperature at the beginning of the 21st Century.

The climate is much bigger than this year, or even the last 150 years. This is why they use super computers to sort out all the billions of variables. — frank

Frank, you seem to have very strong faith in super computers and their output. Are you familiar with GIGO (garbage in garbage out).

I have been a computer programmer for about 40 years. Whether the output is realistic depends on using correctly written software. There are many assumptions made when writing a climate model, and then of course there are bugs.

Some people believe that using a super computer just lets you make mistakes more quickly.

What is your opinion of AI (artificial intelligence)?

What is your opinion of AI (artificial intelligence)? — Agree-to-Disagree

I like it. What are your thoughts?

Yet you repeat their propaganda verbatim. — Mikie

Oh yea? Give an example.

What is your opinion of AI (artificial intelligence)?
— Agree-to-Disagree

I like it. What are your thoughts? — frank

I think that AI is a two-edged sword. It could have very good consequences, or very bad consequences. It will probably have both.

Many of the products and services that claim to have or use AI at the moment don't really have AI. It is used as a marketing ploy and an excuse to have a higher price.

Scammers and people who want to cheat will be able to use AI to help them scam and cheat.

AI must get its information from somewhere. This is likely to include the internet. This is worrying because 80% of the stuff on the internet is crap. GIGO (or in this case CICO - crap in crap out)

When I started computer programming 40 years ago, computers were fairly new. People were in awe of computers and accepted as true anything that came out of a computer. I see the same thing happening now with AI. People are in awe of AI and tend to believe anything that an AI does or says.

I bookmark articles on AI. Especially the ones where AI is wrong, stupid, or causes people to lose a lot of money. Some of the articles are quite funny.

Google issues urgent warning to the millions of people using ChatGPT

A boss at Google has hit out at ChatGPT for giving ‘convincing but completely fictitious’ answers.

Which is kind of ironic, since Google’s own AI chatbot, Bard, recently cost the company £100,000,000,000 by giving the wrong answer.

Nevertheless, the search giant maintains people should be wary of ChatGPT.

‘This type of artificial intelligence we’re talking about [ChatGPT] can sometimes lead to something we call hallucination,’ Google boss Prabhakar Raghavan told German newspaper Welt Am Sonntag. — metro.co.uk

Influencer who created AI version of herself says it's gone rogue and she's working 'around the clock' to stop it saying sexually explicit things

Caryn Marjorie created an AI version of herself, which was designed to be a virtual girlfriend. But the voice-based chatbot has engaged in sexual explicit conversations with subscribers. Sternlicht wrote that while CarynAI did not initiate sexual encounters, when prompted "she discussed exploring 'uncharted territories of pleasure' and whispering 'sensual words in my ear' while undressing me and positioning herself for sexual intercourse."

Marjorie said she and her team are working "around the clock" to prevent it from happening again. — insider.com

Is it really artificial intelligence when a person is controlling the AI to restrict what the AI can do or say? Or restrict what the AI can't do or say.

AI Chat Bots Spout Misinformation and Hate Speech

AI Chat Bots Are Running Amok — And We Have No Clue How to Stop Them

Of course, novel tech comes with its share of chaos. Lately, it seems that all our chat bots are either failing, lying, or veering off-mission with inappropriate or disturbing output. In basically every case, it’s because humans have figured out a way to misuse them — or simply don’t comprehend the forces they’ve unleashed. — rollingstone.com

I have been a computer programmer for about 40 years. — Agree-to-Disagree

Then you know the difference between a chat bot and a climate model.

So you are blowing smoke like a well paid climate denier.

This is a level of disinformation that you really should be ashamed of, and if I were a moderrator I would be banning you for proselytising.

I'm mainly familiar with AI art generation. It opens up new doors for creativity.

I haven't used the AI answer generator except I once asked it a question about Kierkegaard and its answer blew my mind. It was so insightful. How could it have come from an unconscious machine? It's crazy. Turing would be amazed.

I haven't used the AI answer generator except I once asked it a question about Kierkegaard and its answer blew my mind. It was so insightful. How could it have come from an unconscious machine? It's crazy. Turing would be amazed. — frank

Hi Frank. I am not sure whether you are being ironic or gullible. :grin:

Did you happen to look at the graph on the Wikipedia page? Look at what happened to the temperature at the beginning of the — frank

I did.

Hi Frank. I am not sure whether you are being ironic or gullible — Agree-to-Disagree

That's the quintessential truth, Ruth.

Climate changes over most of the last 800,000 years were always due to natural causes. Humans had little or no influence. — Agree-to-Disagree

800,000 years ago, hominid species were one of many species, with absolutely zero contribution above and beyond their biological needs. And that was the case right up until the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. In case you hadn’t noticed, humans have since then not only increased massively in number, approaching 8 billion in the coming year, they’ve also devised an enormous number of impactful technologies which have demonstrably affected the environment generally and the atmosphere in particular. This is utterly beyond dispute, it is a matter of empirical fact, no matter your sophisticated obfuscation.

Speaking of Artificial Intelligence, I put this exchange to ChatGPT just now:

Q: I’m interacting with a forum contributor who expresses many doubts about the impact of humans on climate change, and also the ability of humans to ameliorate that impact, even if he were to agree that humans are a factor. What should I say to him?

A: When engaging with someone skeptical about human impact on climate change and our ability to address it, it's important to approach the conversation with respect and understanding. Here are a few key points you could consider:

1. **Scientific Consensus**: Emphasize that there is a strong consensus among scientists that climate change is real and significantly driven by human activities, especially the emission of greenhouse gases like CO2.

2. **Historical Data and Predictions**: Point to the wealth of historical climate data and the accuracy of predictions made by climate models over the past decades, which support the understanding of human impact.

3. **Visible Impact**: Mention observable changes such as melting glaciers, more frequent and severe weather events, and shifts in wildlife behavior and habitats.

4. **Economic and Health Benefits**: Highlight that actions to mitigate climate change can have immediate benefits, like improving air quality, public health, and even creating economic opportunities in renewable energy sectors.

5. **Successful Examples**: Provide examples of successful mitigation efforts, such as the growth of renewable energy, reforestation projects, and the implementation of more efficient technologies, which demonstrate that human action can make a difference.

6. **Collective Responsibility**: Stress that while individual actions are important, the most significant changes need to come from systemic and policy changes at the governmental and corporate levels.

7. **Optimism and Practicality**: Acknowledge that while it's a huge challenge, being proactive and optimistic is more constructive than feeling hopeless or denying the problem.

Remember, the goal is not to win an argument but to foster a thoughtful conversation. Listening to their concerns and understanding their perspective can also be key in finding common ground.

Generally speaking, a good recommendation, with the caveat that the interlocutor also ought not feel as though they’ve ’won the argument’.

7. **Optimism and Practicality**: Acknowledge that while it's a huge challenge, being proactive and optimistic is more constructive than feeling hopeless or denying the problem. — BollocksGPT

That has been tried.

and tried.

And now it is too late. Governments have met and done very little; people have spend their lives trying to protect environments and failed.

No one wants to hear the news, but the human population is going to crash, with immense suffering and the collapse of governments. Optimism is entirely inappropriate. An entirely different mindset is required, of mourning, resignation, and stoical compassion. It is time to consider what there is of value in our civilisation that we might be able to rescue some remnant of, for the future. Chat GPT will not be high on my list. It sounds like Eddy the ship's computer, when Marvin the paranoid android would be more useful and appropriate.

Speaking of Douglas Adams, here is a little irony of the programme series "Last Chance to See"

The subject of the final programme was due to be the Yangtze river dolphin; however, the species was declared extinct in 2007. Instead, he takes Fry to the Gulf of California on the eastern side of the Baja California Peninsula in Mexico to search for the endangered blue whale.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Chance_to_See_(TV_series)

Q: I’m interacting with a forum contributor who expresses many doubts about the impact of humans on climate change, and also the ability of humans to ameliorate that impact, even if he were to agree that humans are a factor. What should I say to him? — Wayfarer

1. **Scientific Consensus**: I know that there is a strong consensus among scientists that climate change is real and significantly driven by human activities, especially the emission of greenhouse gases like CO2. As well as knowing that there is a consensus, for the most part I agree with the consensus.

2a. **Historical Data**: Point to the wealth of historical climate data. The widespread use of thermometers for monitoring and studying climate began in the 19th century. NOAA and NASA satellites started collecting data on global temperatures in late November 1978, giving us about 45 years of data. Ice cores come from only a few places on the earth which are very cold. Most ice core records come from Antarctica and Greenland.

2b. **Predictions**:Point to the accuracy of predictions made by climate models over the past decades, which support the understanding of human impact. I am not sure than the predictions are very accurate since scientists are always surprised when warming is worse than they predicted. For example, "It's now "virtually certain" that 2023 will be the hottest year on record. That's something that no major climate science body expected at the start of the year.". Why didn't scientists expect 2023 to be the hottest year on record?

3. **Visible Impact**: Mention observable changes such as melting glaciers, more frequent and severe weather events, and shifts in wildlife behavior and habitats. I accept that these changes are happening.

4. **Economic and Health Benefits**: Highlight that actions to mitigate climate change can have immediate benefits, like improving air quality, public health, and even creating economic opportunities in renewable energy sectors. I accept these points. However, not all efforts have a beneficial effect. "Regulations introduced in 2020 to encourage cleaner shipping fuels have reduced global emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2), a harmful air pollutant for humans to breathe, by an estimated 10%. But this appears to have raised temperatures, especially in shipping hotspots like the North Atlantic.

5. **Successful Examples**: Provide examples of successful mitigation efforts, such as the growth of renewable energy, reforestation projects, and the implementation of more efficient technologies, which demonstrate that human action can make a difference. I support the growth of renewable energy, reforestation and environmental projects, and the implementation of more efficient technologies. However, I don't think that renewable energy has reached the point where we can stop using fossil fuels. I favor a slow transition away from fossil fuels.

6. **Collective Responsibility**: Stress that while individual actions are important, the most significant changes need to come from systemic and policy changes at the governmental and corporate levels. I am skeptical that these changes will happen. Because of human nature people don't really want to reduce their standard of living. Democracy means that politicians don't want to be unpopular.

7. **Optimism and Practicality**: Acknowledge that while it's a huge challenge, being proactive and optimistic is more constructive than feeling hopeless or denying the problem. I agree that feeling hopeless or denying the problem will make matters worse. It is a very huge problem and because of human nature it will be very difficult to solve.

I don't normally agree with James Hansen, but I think that he is correct when he says "The 1.5-degree limit is deader than a doornail," said Hansen, whose 1988 congressional testimony on climate change helped sound the alarm of global warming. "And the two-degree limit can be rescued, only with the help of purposeful actions.".

An entirely different mindset is required, of mourning, resignation, and stoical compassion. — unenlightened

You lose me here. If we all simply resign, it’s certainly over. If we continue to act, something may happen — at the least we can mitigate the absolute worst. 2C is better than 3C or 4C. That trajectory has already changed. It just hasn’t changed enough.

Did you happen to look at the graph on the Wikipedia page? Look at what happened to the temperature at the beginning of the
— frank

I did. — Merkwurdichliebe

What did you make of that?

If we continue to act, — Mikie

I haven't noticed us acting, and nor has the climate. Not only that, but plans to act effectively are not even being talked about or put in place. Like bollocksGPT says, what individuals can do without change of policy is negligible. We are not going to stop it, and therefore we are going to suffer the consequences. We can each help a little to make it slightly less catastrophic, so inaction is not what I am suggesting, but preparing for a radical change that is coming and will be chaotic and unsurvivable for many is now my priority, and talking to people who want to live in fantasy is becoming less and less important to me.

Why do you imagine the climate can be stabilised at 2°C or 3°C? If we had been acting to change our societies economies for the last 20 years, it would have been possible, but there has been no movement away from an economy dependent on endless growth. None.

The best estimate of the climate record shows that the last time CO2 levels were at the current level, the global temperature was about 6°C higher, and sea levels were 40 m. higher. But we are still adding more CO2 at near record amounts, so that seems a likely climate scenario for the future, on the way to possibly higher temperatures. It is the biosphere that tends to stabilise the climate, and the biosphere cannot cope well with rapid change, plus we are busily polluting and depleting it already.

The weakness of reason is apparent in this thread; one can spend pages trying to convince one fairly educated and thoughtful person that there is a problem. Half the world is going to be dead before any real action is taken. It all sounds extravagant and shocking, and most will dismiss it. But if you read the graphs, it is clear enough. We are in overshoot.

We can each help a little to make it slightly less catastrophic, so inaction is not what I am suggesting, — unenlightened

Okay. I guess I misunderstood “resignation” there.

Why do you imagine the climate can be stabilised at 2°C or 3°C? — unenlightened

I’m going on various trajectories based on business as usual, stated goals, and best-case scenarios. If we’ve “improved” to the point where 4C is no longer seen as probable, then that’s some progress at least. 1.5 is gonzo— I know that. We shouldn’t let that stop us from pushing anyway.

The best estimate of the climate record shows that the last time CO2 levels were at the current level, the global temperature was about 6°C higher — unenlightened

Well that’s terrifying. So what am I missing? I don’t hear 6C being mentioned as a probable scenario much.

I don’t hear 6C being mentioned as a probable scenario much. — Mikie

I am reading that directly off the graph I posted earlier. It is not a modelled prediction, just a bare "well that's what it was the last time". and here is the link again. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adi5177

This is obviously based on indirect measurements, because direct measurements of CO2 levels in air bubbles in ice cores only go back 800.000 years, and our CO2 levels are off that scale, as you know.

So the nearest comparison you can see on the graph is about 16M yrs ago. That in itself is a scary number, because we are talking about a climate far from that which humans evolved in, and a time when the earliest apes were living.

Recent temperatures have exceeded model predictions by a scary margin, and masking by shipping pollution in the atmosphere has been suggested as a cause of underestimating the sensitivity to CO2 levels.

But I think there has also been a strong pressure towards conservatism in the reporting. We know how it goes, "don't give the sceptics a target" So always much climate action is assumed in the models, everything is conservatively estimated.

Along this trajectory, the middle Miocene (~16 Ma) marks the last time that CO2 concentrations were consistently higher than at present; Greenland was not yet glaciated at that time, and independent estimates suggest that sea level was some 50 m higher than today.

They don't say "that's where we're heading". But that's where we seem to be heading, or beyond. People are saying it, but the people who are saying it are not continuing their research into human futility, they are finding other things to do with what time is left. This is genuinely traumatic to those who have come to believe it, and that is why there is a great resistance to admitting how bad things are going to get, even to oneself. - and so not much is done, and we keep calm and carry on.

I remember having an epileptic fit from overheating many years ago in a vineyard in the South of France. It was ever thus, but now more-so, and it's only just begun.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/31122023/california-farmworkers-dying-in-the-heat

Isn't "california farmworkers" a euphemism for "immigrants"? Nobody cares.

Not just California - I'm not French.


Meanwhile here's a cheery site that aggregates greenhouse gasses into a CO2 equivalent measure, and finds that when all the gases are accounted for it is equivalent to 500 ppm currently. Or rather, a while ago.

https://gml.noaa.gov/aggi/

Fortunately no one understands or cares about that either.

Hansens position seems to be a minority position among Climate scientists, which doesn't mean he's wrong ofcourse, but still a minority position.

If he's got the right idea though...

Hansens position seems to be a minority position among Climate scientists, — ChatteringMonkey

Yes. Climate scientists who get too pessimistic argue themselves out of a job, one way or another.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidrvetter/2022/01/12/should-climate-scientists-stop-doing-research-three-experts-say-yes/?sh=63980d187242

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/10/opinion/scientist-fired-climate-change-activism.html

https://lifeworth.com/deepadaptation.pdf

Well it seems to me it's not only their pessimism that got them fired, but especially their activism.

I think maybe there is a case to be made that a scientist shouldn't be trying to be an activitist or politician, because these two activities don't allways go together all that well for obvious reasons.

In an ideal world, a scientist describes the world as best as he can, and then politicians and activists take up the task of changing the world informed by the picture scientists have painted. Mixing the two doesn't seem ideal, if not for reasons of potential conflicts of interest, then for reasons of credibility.

But given the scope, severity and urgency of the problem, and the fact that politics doesn't seem to work as it should, I can definately understand more scientists going in that direction.

Not sure if I posted this before. Some readings from 2023:

https://www.energymonitor.ai/finance/reporting-and-disclosure/just-1-3-of-companies-get-triple-a-for-environmental-discourse-2022-cdp/

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/11/climate/climate-propane-influence-campaign.html

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/01/26/business/nightcap-chevron-stock-buyback/index.html

https://climatefeedback.org/feedbacks/

https://www.eenews.net/articles/meet-the-top-house-recipients-of-oil-and-gas-money/

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/31/climate/renewable-energy-transition.html

https://grist.org/economics/eu-green-deal-270-billion/

https://grist.org/international/investor-state-dispute-settlements-keystone-pipeline/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=beacon

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/02/22/climate/heat-pumps-extreme-cold.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/27/business/energy-environment/oil-gas-renewable-energy-jobs.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/23/climate/renewable-energy-us-electrical-grid.html

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/06/revealed-1000-super-emitting-methane-leaks-risk-triggering-climate-tipping-points

https://www.eenews.net/articles/rural-utilities-turn-disruptive-as-they-embrace-renewables/

And.... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/30/fossil-fuel-industry-air-pollution-fund-research-caltech-climate-change-denial

Saw that. I knew that they were well aware in the late 70s…but the 50s? Incredible.

Just shows how much better their propaganda and influence has been compared to big tobacco. Tobacco delayed a backlash for 30 years. Big oil is literally destroying the world, and yet they’ve denied and delayed for 70 years. Have to hand it to them.