This is a great question. You should ask the principle scientist of the study, Chris Poulsen. He has a twitter account that you can reach out to him through.
This is not my field, but my guess would be that 24,000 years ago was chosen because it corresponds to the Last Glacial Maximum. The obvious reason is that it represents the lowest global temperature within a timeframe of normal human activity, and was a recent major turning point of the global climate.
Beyond that, I'm not sure why the Last Glacial Maximum was specifically chosen as the starting point but I'm sure someone more versed in climatology may be able to comment on the significance of it.
The jury has been in for a while. Humans are causing climate change. We're not going to do anything about it, future generations are just going to have to deal with it.
The way things are going, will there be a human future we actually want anyway? I'm seriously, 100%, with all my heart, believing we are going to live in a dystopian world in 20 years.
The issue is that many of us know there are ways to make our civilization more sustainable, but the incentives are often to maintain the status quo. Something needs to shake or break loose.
Geeze. Climate change alarmists have been so incredibly wrong for almost two generations.
I've mentioned this before, but I live near Glacier National Park. In the early 2000s, some new screeching alarmist climate model forecasted the demise of the glaciers in the park by 2020. Signs at all the parks' entrances were erected stating this sad climate fact. But when ol' 2020 rolled around and the glaciers were still there, the signs with the climate facts were taken down with zero fanfare and zero interest in why the claim was wrong, no interest in ascertaining why the climate model failed.
Reminds me a lot of the CIA and it's hilariously worse-than-useless history. A few months before the fall of the wall and the crumbling of the Soviet empire, CIA reported that Russia was as strong as ever, a huge threat, they reported on its secret military buildups that were never in existence and this booming economy cranking out war machine stuff constantly, a real juggernaut. They were the most surprised people to find the soviet empire crumbling--they'd spent generations amping up every president that this was _the_ threat, existential, and justified all manner of ridiculous garbage. And this was just the cherry on a multi-decade ice cream sunday of failed predictions, bad intelligence, and counterproductive covert ops.
Eventually, it came to the point where the president, hilariously the son of a CIA director, had to state that their opinions were worthless, basically, before they tried to, like, improve their intelligence gathering systems.
Climate change alarmists are like post-wall CIA right now. Zero credibility. A track record that is just unbelievable--full of shrill, insane predictions over decades that have been completely disproven by basic facts and evidence.
Ice caps gone by 2000! No, wait, 75% chance they're gone by 2014! No wait, gone by 2030! Florida sunk by 2015!
For something as difficult to predict and globally observe and for something as complex as the environment, I'd say we should be very wary of anyone pushing shrill alarmism.
It should be very suspicious that the shrill alarmists seem to always have the solution which invariably involves them getting lots more money and lots more power over the carbon-spewing masses. ("Increase taxes and eat less meat to change the weather." lol)
[+] [-] propogandist|4 years ago|reply
>In between ice ages, some lesser peaks of temperature have occurred a number of times, especially around 125,000 years ago.
>At this time, temperatures may have been about 1°C to 2°C degrees warmer than today.
>Sea level was 5 to 8 metres higher than today – a rise sufficient to inundate most of the world’s coastal cities.
>This peak was triggered by the orbital cycles.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11647-climate-myths-i... -- from 2007
[+] [-] beowulfey|4 years ago|reply
This is not my field, but my guess would be that 24,000 years ago was chosen because it corresponds to the Last Glacial Maximum. The obvious reason is that it represents the lowest global temperature within a timeframe of normal human activity, and was a recent major turning point of the global climate.
Beyond that, I'm not sure why the Last Glacial Maximum was specifically chosen as the starting point but I'm sure someone more versed in climatology may be able to comment on the significance of it.
[+] [-] xyzzy21|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throw9000|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peakaboo|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] regnarg|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CameronNemo|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GaryTang|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] djenendik|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andred14|4 years ago|reply
Just give it up, NONE of the previous climate disaster predictions came true. NOT ONE.
[+] [-] saalweachter|4 years ago|reply
https://www.science.org/content/article/even-50-year-old-cli...
[+] [-] politician|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sjwalter|4 years ago|reply
I've mentioned this before, but I live near Glacier National Park. In the early 2000s, some new screeching alarmist climate model forecasted the demise of the glaciers in the park by 2020. Signs at all the parks' entrances were erected stating this sad climate fact. But when ol' 2020 rolled around and the glaciers were still there, the signs with the climate facts were taken down with zero fanfare and zero interest in why the claim was wrong, no interest in ascertaining why the climate model failed.
Reminds me a lot of the CIA and it's hilariously worse-than-useless history. A few months before the fall of the wall and the crumbling of the Soviet empire, CIA reported that Russia was as strong as ever, a huge threat, they reported on its secret military buildups that were never in existence and this booming economy cranking out war machine stuff constantly, a real juggernaut. They were the most surprised people to find the soviet empire crumbling--they'd spent generations amping up every president that this was _the_ threat, existential, and justified all manner of ridiculous garbage. And this was just the cherry on a multi-decade ice cream sunday of failed predictions, bad intelligence, and counterproductive covert ops.
Eventually, it came to the point where the president, hilariously the son of a CIA director, had to state that their opinions were worthless, basically, before they tried to, like, improve their intelligence gathering systems.
Climate change alarmists are like post-wall CIA right now. Zero credibility. A track record that is just unbelievable--full of shrill, insane predictions over decades that have been completely disproven by basic facts and evidence.
Ice caps gone by 2000! No, wait, 75% chance they're gone by 2014! No wait, gone by 2030! Florida sunk by 2015!
For something as difficult to predict and globally observe and for something as complex as the environment, I'd say we should be very wary of anyone pushing shrill alarmism.
It should be very suspicious that the shrill alarmists seem to always have the solution which invariably involves them getting lots more money and lots more power over the carbon-spewing masses. ("Increase taxes and eat less meat to change the weather." lol)
[+] [-] RappingBoomer|4 years ago|reply