Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Atreyu]

Atreyu, why do you keep confusing weather with climate?

It's all part of meteorology/climatology. My point is apropos.

And it is that one should not 'believe' in the climatology models which are predicting what the climate will be 50-100 years out, any more than one should 'believe' in the 10th day of a 10-day weather forecast. In fact, the models are even less reliable than the 10-day forecasts.

We should not be basing laws and big decisions on what computer models are telling us our climate will be like decades from now. The 'weight' of the proposed changes are too 'heavy' compared to the accuracy of the models, which are, in fact, merely glorified educated guesses...

[Eduk]

I could schedule a BBQ in winter. After all the ten day forecast is not 100% accurate. Maybe it will be 30 degrees Celsius. Who knows?

[Steve3007]

Eduk:

I could schedule a BBQ in winter. After all the ten day forecast is not 100% accurate. Maybe it will be 30 degrees Celsius. Who knows?

Precisely. Hopefully Atreyu gets the point of what you're saying here.

Atreyu:

And it is that one should not 'believe' in the climatology models which are predicting what the climate will be 50-100 years out, any more than one should 'believe' in the 10th day of a 10-day weather forecast. In fact, the models are even less reliable than the 10-day forecasts.

The reason why weather forecasting is less reliable the further into the future you go is that weather is a chaotic system. But a system which is chaotic on a small scale can be very predictable on a large scale. An analogy is the laws of thermodynamics and ideal gases. These are very precise and accurate laws which work very well. But they apply to large collections of particles which, on a small scale, are entirely random and unpredictable. You can't tell where an individual gas molecule is going to be in a few seconds. But you can tell very accurately what will happen to the gas as a whole if you change the pressure, volume or temperature.

It is predictable that the more fossil fuels we burn the more CO2 there will be in the atmosphere. And it is predictable that the more greenhouse gases, such as CO2, there are in the atmosphere the higher the global average temperature will go. This is completely different from trying to predict the short term local weather. There is no comparison whatsoever between the two.

We should not be basing laws and big decisions on what computer models are telling us our climate will be like decades from now. The 'weight' of the proposed changes are too 'heavy' compared to the accuracy of the models, which are, in fact, merely glorified educated guesses...

Present your evidence that these models are glorified educational guesses. Or is it just a hunch?

[Sy Borg]

Atreyu, why do you keep confusing weather with climate?

It's all part of meteorology/climatology. My point is apropos.

And it is that one should not 'believe' in the climatology models which are predicting what the climate will be 50-100 years out, any more than one should 'believe' in the 10th day of a 10-day weather forecast. In fact, the models are even less reliable than the 10-day forecasts.

We should not be basing laws and big decisions on what computer models are telling us our climate will be like decades from now. The 'weight' of the proposed changes are too 'heavy' compared to the accuracy of the models, which are, in fact, merely glorified educated guesses...

The reason why policies are based on forecasts is that the old forecasts have been proved correct, with a number of Pacific Island already losing arable and domestic land though sea level rise, as predicted. Meanwhile, it's no coincidence that most years this century have been amongst the hottest ever recorded globally. Ask the people of Vanuatu if they think global warming and sea level rise are real.

It's just physics. The details - like the ten day forecast - are always less certain than big events, due to chaos, which is your angle generally. Your own life is more predictable in terms of large movements than details too.

So the boffins cannot give details (due to chaos) but they do know some things that happen when temperatures rise above a certain level. If you have any doubt that carbon traps heat, consider why Venus, which is not so much closer to the Sun than Earth, and further than Mercury is the hottest planet? A thick carbon atmosphere that traps heat.

[Jklint]

The science of climate change can be complicated; what simplifies and clinches it for me are three simple factors:

1 - We know the effects of green house gases (carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere.

2 - Many millions of tons get pumped into it every year.

3 - It goes against logic to think this is not going to have consequences.

One can talk about all the complicated chemistry involved in the process and the countless interactions of earth, sea and sky as factors for climate behavior. But just as flora and fauna achieve equilibrium in their own micro-states with occasional adjustments here and there, the same is no less true for macro processes such as climate. Unbalance its operations and it will reconfigure itself accordingly which, quite obviously, it's already in the process of doing. The most important part in this "for or against debate" is what's going to happen if it doesn't stop!

[Eduk]

The most important part in this "for or against debate" is what's going to happen if it doesn't stop!

At the least, massive dislocation of millions of humans and all the resulting chaos, economic depression and hatred that will go hand in hand with that.

[Jklint]

The most important part in this "for or against debate" is what's going to happen if it doesn't stop!

At the least, massive dislocation of millions of humans and all the resulting chaos, economic depression and hatred that will go hand in hand with that.

Yes! and you can magnify the hatred into geopolitical wars for resources; one apocalypse causing another.

[Rederic]

Portsmouth (where I live) is an island. Most of Portsmouth is only 1 metre above mean sea level. Our sea defences are being raised 1200mm. I don't think they're doing this just for fun.

[Eduk]

Yes! and you can magnify the hatred into geopolitical wars for resources; one apocalypse causing another.

It's OK* the developed world will exploit the hell out of the weak and the effects for us will be minimised.

*If you live in a developed country

[Steve3007]

Rederic, I'd never actually realised that Portsmouth is an island until you said that. Where I live, in Kent, is also (historically) and island. But with nice high chalk cliffs, made from dead creatures similarly to those that we're now burning to make the CO2.

[Razblo]

Razblo, I'd be interested to know about the great conspiracy that spawned this "climate change religion".

Is it due to the Reptilians, the Greys, the Illuminati, Communists, Greenies or the Obama-Clinton Secret Islamic Mafia?

Hey maybe global warming is due misogyny, eh?

-- Updated November 26th, 2017, 3:59 pm to add the following --

Portsmouth (where I live) is an island. Most of Portsmouth is only 1 metre above mean sea level. Our sea defences are being raised 1200mm. I don't think they're doing this just for fun.

This has nothing to do with the question of why sea maybe rising.

-- Updated November 26th, 2017, 4:01 pm to add the following --

Yes! and you can magnify the hatred into geopolitical wars for resources; one apocalypse causing another.

It's OK* the developed world will exploit the hell out of the weak and the effects for us will be minimised.

*If you live in a developed country

I presume you live in the 'developed world'. What's keeping you there? I suggest it is probably due to it's development.

[Steve3007]

Razblo:

Hey maybe global warming is due misogyny, eh?

Yeah. Bloody tree-hugging, greenie feminists.

This has nothing to do with the question of why sea maybe rising.

More to do with Portsmouth City Council being suckered by the climate change myth and wasting council tax payers' money on pointless concrete, yes?

I presume you live in the 'developed world'. What's keeping you there? I suggest it is probably due to it's development.

Hypocrisy eh? Happy to take advantage of all the benefits of living in an industrial revolution early adopter but winges about its supposed side effects.


These are your implied arguments, yes? Or no arguments? Just a bit of fun?

[Razblo]

Razblo:

Hey maybe global warming is due misogyny, eh?

Yeah. Bloody tree-hugging, greenie feminists.

This has nothing to do with the question of why sea maybe rising.

More to do with Portsmouth City Council being suckered by the climate change myth and wasting council tax payers' money on pointless concrete, yes?

I presume you live in the 'developed world'. What's keeping you there? I suggest it is probably due to it's development.

Hypocrisy eh? Happy to take advantage of all the benefits of living in an industrial revolution early adopter but winges about its supposed side effects.


These are your implied arguments, yes? Or no arguments? Just a bit of fun?

It is for you to decide.

[Sy Borg]

What is more likely:

1. that nearly all scientists engaged in climate work are either wrong or corrupt and the few dissenters are undiscovered geniuses?

2. that most scientists aim for objectivity and the tiny percentage of dissenters are either fossil fuel industry employees or random attention seekers?

[Razblo]

What is more likely:

1. that nearly all scientists engaged in climate work are either wrong or corrupt and the few dissenters are undiscovered geniuses?

2. that most scientists aim for objectivity and the tiny percentage of dissenters are either fossil fuel industry employees or random attention seekers?

Not hard to discover at all.

I suppose it is off to the gulag for me.