33 ms·

Why does that come to mind? The explanation provided does not explain everything even within the confines of climate science. When massive amounts of energy a

by syops 5y ago

Why does that come to mind? The explanation provided does not explain everything even within the confines of climate science. When massive amounts of energy are added to a dynamical system there will be chaos before a new equilibrium is obtained. This is not controversial. It’s settled science. The heat dome in question is not just a bunch of new local high temps. That’s the wrong thing to look at. It’s a large high pressure mass doing things that the equilibrium established before the industrial revolution largely prevented.

aww_dang 5y ago
Perhaps it is a bit unfair to more nuanced proponents of climate apocalypse, but in popular discourse, every weather event is attributed to climate change. There is no observation of weather which cannot be construed as a result of anthropogenic climate change. If the conclusion opposes impending doom the popular refrain, "weather is not climate" is employed. >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.
- syops 5y ago
  There are lots of examples of where science has gotten it wrong. So what do we do, philosophically, with this fact? It is possible that the 97+% of climate scientists are wrong in their beliefs. Let us ponder this possibility and assign it an unknown probability of X. Let us now ponder the following two facts. 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.
  - aww_dang 5y ago
    >Every known example of where science has gotten it wrong is also an example of where science has corrected itself. 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.
    - syops 5y ago
      It’s sort of a survivorship bias. I say sort of since generally speaking new evidence or contrary evidence without explanation has a history of being convincing in science. We won’t have perfect knowledge but one can make decisions based on the best available knowledge. Lack of perfect knowledge is not a moral justification for inaction in the face of looming major disruption.
      - aww_dang 5y ago
        You hit the nail on the head with question about morality. The climate apocalypse is presented as a strictly scientific issue. It becomes scientism when the moral questions are ignored. 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.
peteradio 5y ago
> before a new equilibrium is obtained 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.
- syops 5y ago
  I have no idea. I have no expertise on any of these issues.

by syops 5y ago

aww_dang 5y ago

Perhaps it is a bit unfair to more nuanced proponents of climate apocalypse, but in popular discourse, every weather event is attributed to climate change. There is no observation of weather which cannot be construed as a result of anthropogenic climate change. If the conclusion opposes impending doom the popular refrain, "weather is not climate" is employed. >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.

syops 5y ago
There are lots of examples of where science has gotten it wrong. So what do we do, philosophically, with this fact? It is possible that the 97+% of climate scientists are wrong in their beliefs. Let us ponder this possibility and assign it an unknown probability of X. Let us now ponder the following two facts. 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.
- aww_dang 5y ago
  >Every known example of where science has gotten it wrong is also an example of where science has corrected itself. 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.
  - syops 5y ago
    It’s sort of a survivorship bias. I say sort of since generally speaking new evidence or contrary evidence without explanation has a history of being convincing in science. We won’t have perfect knowledge but one can make decisions based on the best available knowledge. Lack of perfect knowledge is not a moral justification for inaction in the face of looming major disruption.
    - aww_dang 5y ago
      You hit the nail on the head with question about morality. The climate apocalypse is presented as a strictly scientific issue. It becomes scientism when the moral questions are ignored. 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.

peteradio 5y ago

> before a new equilibrium is obtained 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.

syops 5y ago
I have no idea. I have no expertise on any of these issues.