Su Moo Nein The Belgium Comeex Foliatet Hist Wat Is Leepking Ingin Thes Tifler
-
Hehe...you've already proven you don't understand the science. Now you demonstrate that you don't understand science.
You're the ones that don't understand science, because
@Fox said:You are flat out ignoring everything that says anthropogenic climate change is real and saying "everything that's happening is natural and it'll all work out and sunshine and rainbows and daisies for everyone"
-
To actually do anything about it before we all have to live in floating freezers or space ships.
-post can't be empty-
-
To actually do anything about it before we all have to live in floating freezers or space ships.
Oh whee. Let's dive in.
What about global warming would cause us to have to live in "floating freezers or space ships?" What, exactly, is going to happen that would cause that?
-
Yes you are. You are flat out ignoring everything that says anthropogenic climate change is real and saying "everything that's happening is natural and it'll all work out and sunshine and rainbows and daisies for everyone"
You are either lying or haven't read what I posted. I've never denied that we aren't changing anything. I've shown plenty about why the doomsday scenarios aren't supported by the science.
Yes, destabilized weather patterns. We are seeing huge shifts in the way weather patterns have behaved since we started observing them. And do you honestly mean to fucking tell me there aren't record-breaking droughts?
Yes, I'm saying you have no concept of history. Look at the 1930s, man! That was some drought! Also, note that recent studies have suggested that the American Southwest / Pacific was uncharacteristically wet during the 20th Century. And that the current drought there is pretty much business as usual.
-
The Dust Bowl is a good example of a human-caused environmental disaster that (somehow) didn't result in civilization ending. Even at 1930s technology levels.
Man, remember that scene in Grapes of Wrath where the family had to get in their floating freezers? Brought a tear to my eye.
-
I've shown plenty about why the doomsday scenarios aren't supported by the science.
No you fucking haven't, you've just said "no, that's wrong, everything will actually be fine"
-
But China is the largest by far and perhaps more importantly the fastest growing of CO2 producers.
So how are you going to deal with them if not with money (either rewards or penalties)?
-
@boomzilla said:
I've shown plenty about why the doomsday scenarios aren't supported by the science.
No you fucking haven't, you've just said "no, that's wrong, everything will actually be fine"
Well, I didn't say "everything will actually be fine." But I've shown how your position isn't supported by the evidence.
-
Well, I didn't say "everything will actually be fine." But I've shown how your position isn't supported by the evidence.
No, you haven't, you've just said "THE MODALS WURR WRAWNGGGGGGGG so clearly AGW is a figment of your imagination"
(I'm starting to think that is some sort of conservative dumbass mating call)
-
By convincing them. Unlike the Tea Party morons here, the Chinese actually have a long history of planning for the future.
-
@boomzilla said:
Well, I didn't say "everything will actually be fine." But I've shown how your position isn't supported by the evidence.
No, you haven't, you've just said "THE MODALS WURR WRAWNGGGGGGGG so clearly AGW is a figment of your imagination"
Close enough. But even your straw stupid here is smarter than believing they're literal Gospel.
Unlike the Tea Party morons here, the Chinese actually have a long history of planning for the future.
Yeah, "Let's stop spending too much." That's totally the opposite of thinking about the future. Man...@Polygeekery doesn't know everything, but he's right about how dumb you are.
-
It lacks falsifiability because there's EVIDENCE THAT PROVES IT.
The part you have in all caps is just one more thing we disagree about.
Also, you seem to be using a different definition of falsifiability than the rest of us.
-
Close enough. But even your straw stupid here is smarter than believing they're literal Gospel.
Just because the models were wrong doesn't mean that all of the evidence that went into making them was also wrong, you fucking moron.
-
No, that's the definition I'm using. And by definition, truth lacks falsifiability.
-
Dammit he's never going to reply to my questions if you keep prodding him.
I just wanna know what global warming's going to do, specifically, that'll cause us to have to move into floating freezers. Is that so much to ask?
I have the cause, I have the effect (according to Brafox), I just need the linkage between the two.
-
And by definition, truth lacks falsifiability.
So do belief systems, including religion and AGW.
-
@boomzilla said:
Close enough. But even your straw stupid here is smarter than believing they're literal Gospel.
Just because the models were wrong doesn't mean that all of the evidence that went into making them was also wrong, you fucking moron.
Now you're saying you don't understand the difference between observation and prediction?
No, that's the definition I'm using. And by definition, truth lacks falsifiability.
LOLOLOL.
I just wanna know what global warming's going to do, specifically, that'll cause us to have to move into floating freezers. Is that so much to ask?
He's answered you. Calamities. It'll get hot. It won't rain. It will rain too much. All the ice will melt. Cats and dogs living together...mass hysteria!
Basically, CAGW has become an article of faith. It's the Satan and the Hell and evil of the modern secular progressive world.
-
By convincing them.
Good luck with that. Their economy is growing right now but the country is still in deep enough shit that arbitrarily limiting emissions will cripple it. It will cripple first world nations as well, but perhaps there you will be able to maintain the standard of living, just hinder all progress for a while.
What about Russia where the whole economy (which is already fucked right now) is pretty much directly or indirectly based on natural resources?
-
Humans are the reason the CO2 levels are so high
Pray tell, then, why was the CO2 level more than 4x the current level 150 million years ago according to the graph you posted? (Hint: It wasn't humans. Note also that I'm not referring to the level during either of the Jurassic period extinction events, but to concentration throughout most of the Jurassic period, which was barely lower than during the extinction events.)
that is the main reason yhe climate is going wrong all over the world.
Even if one were to accept for the sake of argument the premise that "the climate is going wrong all over the world," atmospheric CO2 is only one factor in a complex system.
-
You are ... saying "everything that's happening is natural and it'll all work out
I won't speak for @boomzilla or anyone else here, but I'm saying, "The historical record shows a recurring cycle of warm and cool periods, and the current warming trend matches almost exactly when the historical record suggests a warming trend should be expected. (One graph I saw years ago seemed to suggest it's slightly overdue.) Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that at least a significant part, probably most, of the observed warming is a natural phenomenon, not anthropogenic. I don't know whether it'll all work out, but the climate is most likely going to do whatever it's going to do, good or bad, regardless of any human effort to affect it."
-
by definition, truth lacks falsifiability
No. Just proves that you don't know what the word means.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Falsifiability.aspx:
According to the simple, hypothetico-deductive (H-D) model of scientific inquiry, a law claim, theory, or hypothesis H is falsifiable when a potentially checkable prediction O can be logically deduced from it, that is, when H → O. If O is observed to be true, then H passes this predictive test (although it may fail other tests). If O tests false, then H must also be false, since no true statement can logicaly imply a falsehood.
-
We were halfway through the warm part of the cycle already and now we're way out of the cycle, ffs
http://www.johnenglander.net/sites/default/files/images/T CO2 SL current Makiko TIMMED.jpg
-
Even if one were to accept for the sake of argument the premise that "the climate is going wrong all over the world," atmospheric CO2 is only one factor in a complex system.
But it's the only one that's changed by 40% in the blink of an eye
-
Pray tell, then, why was the CO2 level more than 4x the current level 150 million years ago according to the graph you posted? (Hint: It wasn't humans. Note also that I'm not referring to the level during either of the Jurassic period extinction events, but to concentration throughout most of the Jurassic period, which was barely lower than during the extinction events.)
Because of a shitton of other natural factors that damn sure haven't happened in the past 100 years
-
The first thing I considered when I decided to grow one: "what are the chances I will be mistaken for a terrorist?" At the time I thought I was kidding.
-
I won't speak for @boomzilla or anyone else here, but I'm saying,
I don't see anything that you said that I would have reason to disagree with.
-
But it's the only one that's changed by 40% in the blink of an eye
Didn't we have a discussion somewhere about the difference between percentage increases that sound scarier than they are because the absolute magnitudes are so small?
Because of a shitton of other natural factors that damn sure haven't happened in the past 100 years
How would we know? We don't even have a good understanding about massive parts of the climate system.
-
I don't see anything that you said that I would have reason to disagree with.
I didn't think you would, but I was responding to @fox's "You are saying," which was in response to you. I just wanted to make it clear that I was expressing my own thoughts, not speaking on behalf of anyone else.
-
Didn't we have a discussion somewhere about the difference between percentage increases that sound scarier than they are because the absolute magnitudes are so small?
Didn't we have a discussion somewhere about how when one thing changes a lot, and everything else remains the same, chances are that any further changes are probably due to the thing that changed a lot? Maybe we didn't, since I thought that was just common sense.
-
How would we know? We don't even have a good understanding about massive parts of the climate system.
Because, last I checked, we haven't had any countries completely wiped out by supervolcanoes, meteors, or any other natural form of combustion in the past 100 years.
-
QUALITY
-
Didn't we have a discussion somewhere about how when one thing changes a lot, and everything else remains the same, chances are that any further changes are probably due to the thing that changed a lot? Maybe we didn't, since I thought that was just common sense.
You think a lot of weird things, like how you have a sufficient understanding of the climate system to know what changes matter and how to predict what will happen.
@boomzilla said:
How would we know? We don't even have a good understanding about massive parts of the climate system.
Because, last I checked, we haven't had any countries completely wiped out by supervolcanoes, meteors, or any other natural form of combustion in the past 100 years.TDEMSYR
I like how you've checked out and aren't even trying to make sense any more.
-
TDEMSYR
I like how you've checked out and aren't even trying to make sense any more.
I like how you act like I don't have an understanding of the climate system and then when I start talking about other changes that could've accounted for the CO2 increases we've seen over the past 100 years, you go "Duhhhh, wat?"
-
I like how you act like I don't have an understanding of the climate system and then when I start talking about other changes that could've accounted for the CO2 increases we've seen over the past 100 years, you go "Duhhhh, wat?"
Because someone was disputing that we put a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere from burning stuff like oil and coal or something? I still don't understand why you brought that up.
-
@Fox said:
I like how you act like I don't have an understanding of the climate system and then when I start talking about other changes that could've accounted for the CO2 increases we've seen over the past 100 years, you go "Duhhhh, wat?"
Because someone was disputing that we put a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere from burning stuff like oil and coal or something? I still don't understand why you brought that up.
Because they asked what evidence we have that the CO2 levels didn't simply rise naturally like they did millions of years ago, and I said "because the natural causes of those rises haven't happened in the past 100 years", and you were like "herp derp, maybe they did and we don't know about it", and I said "no, they didn't, because we haven't had any catastrophic, country-destroying volcanoes, fires, meteors, etc."
I like how you've checked out and aren't even trying to follow the conversation anymore.
-
and you were like "herp derp, maybe they did and we don't know about it",
Hmm...I guess I missed what they said. I wasn't talking about CO2 levels. I was talking about all the other stuff in the climate system. But it's stuff that we don't understand, so you mostly write it off.
I like how you've checked out and aren't even trying to follow the conversation anymore.
Experience has taught me that it's hardly worth it when you're involved.
-
While fox doesn't seem to know what it means, I'm pretty sure the theories of AGW are falseafiable. If, in 10,000 years humanity straight up disappears and CO2 levels go back to strictly following the cycle, turns out the theories have a high probablity of being right.
On the other hand, if CO2 levels just stop increasing one day, or average temperature stops climbing, without a change in human habits, then the theories were false.
Trouble is, we don't want to find out we were right
-
If all the tests we can conceive to test those theories are impractical for us to observe, then for all practical purposes the theories are not falsifiable. They're theoretically falsifiable, but not practically speaking.
-
Hmm...I guess I missed what they said. I wasn't talking about CO2 levels. I was talking about all the other stuff in the climate system. But it's stuff that we don't understand, so you mostly write it off.
Now I wonder if @fox misunderstood someone asking about other times it got warm. And cold. Obviously anthropogenic CO2 wasn't the cause of those (e.g., Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age). But I guess when you're monomaniacally focused on something you're monomaniacally focused on it.
-
While fox doesn't seem to know what it means, I'm pretty sure the theories of AGW are falseafiable.
I agree. Though in truth, falsifiability is over-rated as a concept. Especially when it comes to predictions like this. But we can look at our predictions and judge how useful they are. At the moment, they are not useful, and seem to be not much more than post hoc ergo prompter hoc, along with a ton of rationalizations that look less likely as time goes on (e.g., the reliance on aerosols in the models).
It seems to me that we're in the epicycle phase of climate science right now. Unfortunately, I don't think there's a simple way out of it a la Kepler / Newton. The system is just so much more complicated.
-
Though in truth, falsifiability is over-rated as a concept. Especially when it comes to predictions like this. But we can look at our predictions and judge how useful they are.
This argument could be used as a justification for astrology.
EDIT: Now that I think about it, you probably should. SJWs tend to not like astrology either, so I'm sure that would annoy them to no end.
-
You think a lot of weird things, like how you have a sufficient understanding of the climate system to know what changes matter and how to predict what will happen.
He's an expert at boat-freezers.
-
Trouble is, we don't want to find out we were right
But why not? What's this scary thing that'll happen?
This is the only question I've been asking all along in this thread. I've heard tons of predictions about living on boat-freezers, but I haven't heard a single iota of even vague logic linking climate change to boat-freezers.
-
But why not? What's this scary thing that'll happen?
This is the only question I've been asking all along in this thread. I've heard tons of predictions about living on boat-freezers, but I haven't heard a single iota of even vague logic linking climate change to boat-freezers.
Rising oceans (and rising at an increasing rate) will eventually consume a substantial portion of the Earth's land mass, such that a significant portion of humanity will have to live on boats. Meanwhile, temperatures will also continue to increase, such that we will require better and better cooling systems to live comfortably. There's a chance that by the time it takes an actual freezer to protect us from ambient temperatures, the aforementioned negative feedback loops have managed to reverse the trend, but that's relying on guesswork at least as much as the "the world will be underwater by 2020" modelers were.
-
Rising oceans (and rising at an increasing rate) will eventually consume a substantial portion of the Earth's land mass, such that a significant portion of humanity will have to live on boats. Meanwhile, temperatures will also continue to increase, such that we will require better and better cooling systems to live comfortably. There's a chance that by the time it takes an actual freezer to protect us from ambient temperatures, the aforementioned negative feedback loops have managed to reverse the trend, but that's relying on guesswork at least as much as the "the world will be underwater by 2020" modelers were.
Toast can't be zesty
-
Rising oceans (and rising at an increasing rate) will eventually consume a substantial portion of the Earth's land mass,
How much? In how much time? Why should I be worried for myself or for my children or for my children's children without knowing those two very important pieces of information?
I want you to know, Brafox, I'm not just asking for myself, but I'm asking for you, too. I want you to engage your brain and come up with your own opinions on the matter, instead of parroting someone else.
-
I want you to engage your brain and come up with your own opinions on the matter, instead of parroting someone else.
I have my own opinions. I agree with other scientists, but that is not because I'm just parroting them.How much? In how much time?
A lot, and a long time from now. Assuming that nothing happens to make the current trends worse, neither you, nor your children, nor your grandchildren will have to face the worst of these, unless we cure aging sometime before any or all of the aforementioned groups are likely to die of old age (which is not quite as absurd today as it was decades ago), but your grandchildren's grandchildren probably will be around when it starts getting really bad.
-
Hey, guess what, when you have trends, and you know that there's a strong probability that nothing is going to change those trends, you can reasonably predict that those trends will continue into the future.
-
I have my own opinions.
They seem to be based on vagaries, though. That's my issue. You don't know the specifics. Like I said above, you have a cause and an effect, but you got nothing in your brain linking the two.
I agree with other scientists, but that is not because I'm just parroting them.
If those scientists have the linkage between cause and effect, perhaps you should learn it so you can answer questions like mine.
A lot, and a long time from now. Assuming that nothing happens to make the current trends worse, neither you, nor your children, nor your grandchildren will have to face the worst of these, unless we cure aging sometime before any or all of the aforementioned groups are likely to die of old age (which is not quite as absurd today as it was decades ago), but your grandchildren's grandchildren probably will be around when it starts getting really bad.
So then why should I vote for changes, right now this instant, to address this problem?
Wouldn't a wiser plan of action be to simply wait until more advanced technologies are available to make the problem meaningless?
-
So then why should I vote for changes, right now this instant, to address this problem?
Because the problem is going to keep getting worse and worse and worse and worse, compounding on itself as time goes on, so the sooner we start, the better chance we have of coming up withmore advanced technologies
@blakeyrat said:to make the problem meaningless
before the problem becomes a serious threat to the entire world.
Falsifiability - Wikipedia
