Einherjar86
Active Member
Many meteorologist and climatologists consider above 85-90 to be "hot." They probably chose 90 as a way to demonstrate that more places are experiencing greater hot-ness.
If Mort Divine ruled the world
- Thread starter Zephyrus
- Start date
rms
Active Member
Dak
mentat
Einherjar86
Active Member
I don't understand people's objection to the idea behind that study, regardless of any objections to the study itself. The world is getting warmer. It's doubtful a NYT study can effectively convey that point, but a vast majority of scientists agree on it.
TechnicalBarbarity
Poser Disposer
Sorry, i haven't been following up here so i might have missed some stuff. But who in the world thinks it's not getting warmer? I know that's how one side loves to spin it but the argument has never been about if it's getting warmer or not, it's about how and why.
Dak
mentat
Consensus =/= fact but- I don't really have any sort of ideological issue with the potentiality or likelihood that the earth is currently in a wamring pattern. My issue is with the religious hysteria surrounding the warming, its causes, and its dire consequences.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Dak
mentat
It probably is partially influenced, but the world has been hotter and has been much, much colder. We still attach too much significance to ourselves. I'd rather call them effects than consequences, at least as far as warming goes. This isn't ozone-killing emissions or plastic in the oceans, which have pretty clear connections with significant consequences.
Well so is the constant trotting out of consensus as a justification by every hack in media.
Einherjar86
Active Member
It's not a competition with ancient epochs. So what if it's been hotter in the past? That's not the point. The point is that it's been warming since humans have started industrializing, and maybe we can do something to combat the consequences.
Saying it's been hotter in the far distant past has no practical bearing on the argument at hand.
I'm confused, because these things are connected to global warming...
No, it's really not.
Dak
mentat
There is no coherent, explicit argument at hand other than one bound together between naked primarily coastal self interest and a climate stasis cult.
Plastic in the water makes the earth warmer? CFCs did contribute but have been widely curbed. The hole in the ozone has, by all accounts, very clear culprits and consequences. Carbon emissions much less so.
Why do you protect shit journalism so? I certainly don't do so for shit psychology (which is probably most psychological "science"), and I theoretically have a tribal interest in doing so.
CiG
Coming of Age in the Milky Way
Dak
mentat
Einherjar86
Active Member
Argument for what? That the planet is warming? Because if so, then yes there is.
Very likely, yes.
I don't understand. Are you saying it's unclear whether increased carbon emissions are the result of industry? Because if so, I highly disagree. It's quite clear that human industry has contributed to increased emissions.
Is that what I'm doing?
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,723
- 113
CiG
Coming of Age in the Milky Way
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,723
- 113
My gen chem professor nearly had to give a trigger warning before describing degenerate orbitals. Academia is so full of pussies. If there's ever a class revolt between a communist working proletariat and a liberal academic bourgeois, I'm joining the commies.
CiG
Coming of Age in the Milky Way
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
Dak
mentat
"The earth is warming" is not the end of it though. There's a religion and associated cottage industry surrounding the meaning of the possible warming and all that is associated with the possibility that the earth is warming.
I haven't seen anyone suggest that microplastics in the ocean contribute to warming.
What I mean is that CFCs were a specific, artificial carbon form which had a specific effect on the ozone. Trying to determine the effect of human contributions to carbon on climate effects though involves a significant amount of caveats and confounds.
Here and often, yes. I'm not sure if it's in reaction to Trump's bashing of journalists or what.
Einherjar86
Active Member
The Arrhenius equation and Keeling curve both point to the impact of industrialization and other human factors in continual global warming. Those were before any religion or associated cottage industry. Honestly, denying the influence of the human population bomb is pretty outrageous at this point in history.
That doesn't automatically lead to arguments about blame or fault, but it should direct us toward certain regulatory principles.
There have been studies suggesting that water magnifies or intensifies the rate of plastic decay due to its exposure to sunlight (similar to why having wet skin makes us more prone to sunburn).
I don't know what else to say other than that's not really true anymore. Or if it's true, the consensus pretty much outweighs the caveats. At some point it has to.
I'm not defending journalists though. I am defending appeals to scientific consensus, because if consensus isn't enough to justify widespread assumptions and expectations about climate change, then we're stuck in a stalemate.
This is why the principle of falsification isn't the be-all end-all of cutting edge science. When it comes to complex systems like climate there will always be data and factoids that don't play by linear rules. We've reached a point in the development of climatological studies where such anomalies are too inconsistent to represent any significant challenge to the overwhelming evidence that climate change is experiencing a warming trend and that human industry plays a significant role in that warming.
For what it's worth, if we're taking ideological jabs, I don't think your skepticism of human influence in climate change has anything to do with some triumph of reason or intellect, and everything to do with your political objections to regulatory measures. I don't see how you can largely ignore the wealth of literature on climate change and privilege the something like two or three percent of outliers, many of whom are backed by special interest groups that oppose policies to combat global warming.
Similar threads
