This event should be a warning call to all people who believe that a global warming of only 2 degrees Celsius will be barely noticeable.
One positive effect is that scientists have collected a lot of data that will help them improve climate models.
- [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-web-pages...
I'm sorry, I really don't touch politic topics and don't want to limit my thinking to binary left/right leafs of thinking, so regardless who ordered this, it was a fatally wrong and inhuman decision.
Karl Popper — 'A theory that explains everything, explains nothing'
>massive amounts of energy are added...
Yes, but the claim (as presented in pop culture) rests upon the premise that the current climatic system is the standard which must be adhered to. The Earth's climate has varied throughout humanity's existence and before.
Additionally, human emitted CO2 is narrowly focused upon as the sole culprit. Other potential mechanisms are dismissed or downplayed.
Unsurprisingly, the conclusion is for more governance. Issuance of carbon-credits as a permission slip to consume energy. Whereas before the petrodollar has been backed by the US military.
Nonviolent Solutions like reforestation are downplayed. Instead forests are mismanaged and allowed to burn. Carbon could be captured as usable wood products. Not only are there problems with the observations and questions about the premises, but the conclusions are inconsistent as well.
"Settled science" was used to buttress cannabis prohibition. Today CBD is touted as a miracle cure. Pick any topic where large institutions fund research. You'll frequently (not always) find something rotten when results correlate with policy proposals.
Every known example of where science has gotten it wrong is also an example of where science has corrected itself. The overwhelming majority of the people most knowledgeable about climate science believe the massive amounts of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution are largely responsible for the disruption of the weather system.
Is X sufficiently high to discount the previous two facts? Scientists are studying perturbations of Earth’s orbit to see the effect that has on climate. Some study the effects of solar dynamics on Earth’s climate. It’s not that CO2 is the sole culprit. It’s that CO2 is the one we can control. It’s not that climate doesn’t change it’s that we are changing it faster than nature can change. It’s changing fast enough that there will be dire consequences to the current world political system.
Of course more governance is needed. The free rider problem mandates that the solution be enforced by government.
That's a bit of survivor's bias isn't it? Where science hasn't "corrected" people disparage dissent or are unaware. If you're game, we might observe that humans are flawed and unable to make perfect observations. Thus empirical knowledge is always flawed and will continuously be "correcting", but never arriving at the zenith of truth.
>Of course more governance is needed. The free rider problem mandates that the solution be enforced by government.
This assumes one accepts the doomsayer's premises. These are the issues being disputed.
1)That men and their CO2 emissions are solely responsible for climate and weather.
2)That there is an optimal climate and fallible men can identify it.
Separate is the issue of "Free riders" and how that relates to the necessity of government mandates. The EPA sets standards for pollution. Those who are within the confines of those standards can do harm with their pollutants. Later they can claim they were within the established guidelines, absolving them of responsibility.
In this case the government regulators have created a scenario where polluters can "ride freely". Consider how this differs from the premises of natural law. If each individual owns himself and his body, those who's industrial factors damage the property of another should be liable for damages - regardless of EPA standards.
IMHO, if we are to examine the moral question we need to ask not just about the premises of the doomsayers, but the potential outcomes of the favored solutions. Even where I disagree with their premises, I can appreciate the questions and arguments around the mechanisms for warming. However, the proposed solutions are plainly harmful.
Where empirical observations required for climate science, apriori knowledge about human nature, reason and logic can be applied to their carbon credit central banking schemes. We know humans are flawed and greedy. We know the world is a complex place. Allowing the further privilege of centrally planning the world's energy consumption invites not just moral hazard, but catastrophic tyranny.
Therefore, if you disagree about the specifics of AGW, fine. That is a separate issue. Consider the moral hazards of the doomsayer's proposals.
Finally, avoid the trap of false alternatives. There are options besides inaction or adopting the warmist's proposals. Reforestation, forestry management and carbon storage through use of wood products is a viable alternative. Ask why this profitable solution is not given precedence over violent, government mandates.
So relax and have a cigarette...
People should understand what that 97% number means. It means that from the papers that addressed the global warming or any effect AND made a position on it, 97% acknowledged that at least to some degree that humans do indeed contribute to global warming. That is the bar for the 97% number.
97% does not address: - how much humans contribute to global warming
- how large the positive feedback effects are (without these, there is little warming from CO2 alone)
- how bad global warming will be
- what are the right policies to address it
What happens in public discourse is that people just dangle the 97% to justify anything, literally anything they say.
You don't want diesel engines? but 97%....why do you hate polar bears?
You don't want to ban plastic straws? 97% of scientists want to ban them
You don't want to live in a small house? but 97%...why do you hate the planet?
You don't think *this* hurricane is caused by global warming? 97% of scientists disagree
Thermometer shows 100F today in Arizona, it's because of global warming, 97% of scientists agree.
It's getting ridiculous, to be honest. It's the pinnacle of appeal to authority.
The 97% I alluded to is not what you claim it to mean.
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-clima...
Look at your link on NASA's page, the statements from societies are something like this:
> The Earth’s climate is changing in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and particulate matter in the atmosphere, largely as the result of human activities.
Which is what the 97% covers, maybe a bit more.
I haven't seen any further statements based on the 97%: for weather events, for policies, for gravity - this is where the fallacy happens. And you did it too in your post, the OP was calling for nuance in regards to gravity, weather and policies, and as a reply you just pulled out the 97%
The claim I make is that it is not an argumentative fallacy to appeal to the advice and knowledge of a large majority of experts in their area of expertise. For instance, note that I don’t appeal to climate scientists for advice on how best to implement policies to reduce CO2 since they aren’t policy experts. It is reasonable to appeal to their authority on the necessity of doing this though.
Is there any guess as to how long this will take? It seems like the interpretation is weather will become a bit more stable after some time, at a +2* new normal.
The denialist theory is that CO2 have no impact on temperature.
So let's build two closed of greenhouses with the same sun exposition, fill one of them with old ambiant air with 450 ppm of CO2 and one with current/predicted ambiant air (750 ppm of CO2), same humidity (or rather, a bassin with the same quantity of water). After a day under the sun, check the temperature of both greenhouses (well, actually, the energy contain in the air of both greenhouses would be better). If one of them have more energy than the second, this "CO2 have no impact on the climate" theory should die and his proponents shut up.
Your experiment would be better formulated as such:
1) Establishing the optimal climate and weather.
2) Create two entire solar systems.
3) Place humans on the Earth of one solar system*
4) Observe the climate of both Earths
5) Decide which one best meets your standard of the ideal climate
As with any scientific experiment, you would want to conduct it multiple times to ensure the results are reproducible. Measure the deviation of each climate and count the number of experiments to determine your degree of certainty.
*3. Make sure humans don't appear (naturally?) on your non-human bearing earth. The question of if humans are a part of nature and therefore part of the ecosystem will arise.
If humans are part of nature, you may then ask if any changes they may or may not contribute are therefore natural.
Traffic deaths would rise because people would increasingly drive under the influence.
In this situation you could say: "This crazy unusual number of traffic deaths near this bar is obviously the result of drunk driving."
In this situation you could not say: "My town had the lowest number of traffic deaths ever recorded last year, so alcohol has not increased accident rates."
And we know that climate change causes more drastic heat waves. If that weren't the case, you'd be correct, but alas.
> If that weren't the case, you'd be correct, but alas.
Why so snarky?
The evidence in my analogy would be blood alcohol tests of the people who crashed, and the evidence in the case of climate change is the measured/calculating heat trapping ability of the atmosphere.
My point is, we have evidence enough that is is valid to say the former, and that is what differentiates it from the latter.
That’s valid, wasn’t clear to me from the example in your initial post.