JGD wrote:

On 30/07/2019 10:34, Spike wrote:

As the article says: "...understanding global temperature trends
requires a long-term perspective", and viewing the NASA reference in
terms of the geologic temperature record might provide a better
base for comparisons.

You've managed to put your finger on a key point. Concern about
climate change is about what happens on human timescales, not
geological timescales. Most children born today - at least in Western
countries - are likely to be alive in 2100 and beyond. So the state
of the earth in 2100 and for their children out to 2200 is what's
vitally important - food to eat, water to drink and dry land
significantly above current sea level to live.

The difference between human and geological timescales is, let's say,
a million times - it's the same ratio as between 20 seconds and a
lifetime. Will the earth survive? Yes, of course, as it has for the
past 4B years. For a significant % of humanity, including your
family, the answer is much less clear. The urgency is about stopping
what is happening in the next 100-200 years, not in 50,000 or one
million or 50 million years. Think human timescales!

Indeed. We hear a great deal about 'save the planet' these days. I
understand the sentiment but what is really meant is 'save the human
race'. The planet is very capable of looking after itself and will do
so long after human life is gone. Even 100-200 years may be an
optimistically long time-span. The next 50 years or so may well see
nature causing some very big problems for what we consider to be our
'civilisation'. Whatever changes are already locked into the climate
system as a result of the increased concentration of CO2 look to me
very likely to happen. I doubt if there's now any chance of stopping
them. The lifestyle changes that would be necessary are almost
certainly politically and socially unacceptable.

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.
https://peakdistrictweather.org
twitter: @TideswellWeathr