5 ms·

> In fact, there's more carbon in the permafrost, Douglas says, than all the carbon humans have spewed into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution — fir

by txsh 9y ago

> In fact, there's more carbon in the permafrost, Douglas says, than all the carbon humans have spewed into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution — first with steam trains, then with coal plants, cars and planes. > Scientists don't know yet how much carbon will get released from thawing permafrost or how fast it will happen. In a nutshell why not accepting anthropogenic global warming is scientific and accepting it is anti-science, not the other way around.

llamataboot 9y ago
huh? This has to do with how bad and how quick the feedback loops created by anthropogenic global warming will be and has nothing do with whether it exists or not.
- txsh 9y ago
  Think about what you wrote. If I am giving you one apple per hour and you are giving me 100 apples per hour, is it accurate to say you are feeding apples back to me? No, I am feeding apples back to you. I am the feedback loop. You are the source.
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    > If I am giving you one apple per hour and you are giving me 100 apples per hour, is it accurate to say you are feeding apples back to me? Yes. I am feeding apples to you. You are feeding apples to me. that's why a feedback loop is called a loop. > No, I am feeding apples back to you. I am the feedback loop. You are the source. You are not a loop. You are a person. I realize that sounds silly, but I think this actually is the miscomprehension at play. We are both sources. And sinks. That's literally the whole point of a feedback loop. Because I'm writing this on a site with a combinator in the upper left-hand corner, consider the following programming/logic analogy: let A = λx.xx Does the program diverge? NO. However, the program let A = λx.xx; AA does diverge. This is analogous to llamataboot's point: if anthropogenic warming triggers a feedback loop, then the effects of that feedback loop are attributable to anthropogenic warming. A is a function definition, not a diverging program. You are a person, not a loop. The observation by llamataboot that "maybe we shouldn't execute AA given what we know about the definition of A" demonstrates a competent and accurate understanding of feedback loops.
throwawayjava 9y ago
It's also true that there's no DEFINITIVE ABSOLUTE PROOF that pressing the nuclear launch button will clause a MAD-style nuclear escalation. But still, there's good reason to believe it would, so it'd be irresponsible to push the button given other reasonable alternatives. "You can't ever know FOR SURE that this destroy life as we know it!" has to be the least logical form and most confusing of climate change skepticism out there. The fact that anyone would consider this argument, on its own, even remotely compelling, is... oy.
- txsh 9y ago
  That has nothing to do with what I quoted from the article. It would benefit you to suppress your religious fervor for a few minutes and examine the facts for yourself.
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    > That has nothing to do with what I quoted from the article. This has everything to do with your characterization of those quotes. "We don't know for certain, but shit could get bad" is a perfectly reasonable basis for precaution. The precautionary principle is not "anti-scientific". > It would benefit you to suppress your religious fervor for a few minutes and examine the facts for yourself. What are you trying to accomplish with this sentence?

by txsh 9y ago

llamataboot 9y ago

huh? This has to do with how bad and how quick the feedback loops created by anthropogenic global warming will be and has nothing do with whether it exists or not.

txsh 9y ago
Think about what you wrote. If I am giving you one apple per hour and you are giving me 100 apples per hour, is it accurate to say you are feeding apples back to me? No, I am feeding apples back to you. I am the feedback loop. You are the source.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  > If I am giving you one apple per hour and you are giving me 100 apples per hour, is it accurate to say you are feeding apples back to me? Yes. I am feeding apples to you. You are feeding apples to me. that's why a feedback loop is called a loop. > No, I am feeding apples back to you. I am the feedback loop. You are the source. You are not a loop. You are a person. I realize that sounds silly, but I think this actually is the miscomprehension at play. We are both sources. And sinks. That's literally the whole point of a feedback loop. Because I'm writing this on a site with a combinator in the upper left-hand corner, consider the following programming/logic analogy: let A = λx.xx Does the program diverge? NO. However, the program let A = λx.xx; AA does diverge. This is analogous to llamataboot's point: if anthropogenic warming triggers a feedback loop, then the effects of that feedback loop are attributable to anthropogenic warming. A is a function definition, not a diverging program. You are a person, not a loop. The observation by llamataboot that "maybe we shouldn't execute AA given what we know about the definition of A" demonstrates a competent and accurate understanding of feedback loops.

throwawayjava 9y ago

It's also true that there's no DEFINITIVE ABSOLUTE PROOF that pressing the nuclear launch button will clause a MAD-style nuclear escalation. But still, there's good reason to believe it would, so it'd be irresponsible to push the button given other reasonable alternatives. "You can't ever know FOR SURE that this destroy life as we know it!" has to be the least logical form and most confusing of climate change skepticism out there. The fact that anyone would consider this argument, on its own, even remotely compelling, is... oy.

txsh 9y ago
That has nothing to do with what I quoted from the article. It would benefit you to suppress your religious fervor for a few minutes and examine the facts for yourself.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  > That has nothing to do with what I quoted from the article. This has everything to do with your characterization of those quotes. "We don't know for certain, but shit could get bad" is a perfectly reasonable basis for precaution. The precautionary principle is not "anti-scientific". > It would benefit you to suppress your religious fervor for a few minutes and examine the facts for yourself. What are you trying to accomplish with this sentence?