7 ms·

in other words: we don't understand it, but we're still going to blame it on mankind. we can make short range predictions, but still don't know all of the vari

by flagnog 13y ago

in other words: we don't understand it, but we're still going to blame it on mankind. we can make short range predictions, but still don't know all of the variables that are controlling the climate.

rayiner 13y ago
In still other words: it doesn't matter what's causing it, we're fucked if the average temperature in the breadbasket of the U.S. becomes similar to that of Texas, as is projected. The question isn't: did we cause it, the question is: can we slow it down?
- harryh 13y ago
  If mankind is causing it, then we're likely to keep causing it, and be fucked in the way you describe. If mankind is not causing it, then we don't know what's going on and our predictions about the long term (next 100 years) trend are likely wrong.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    The projections are at least partly or mostly based on the trends, which means that even if scientists are wrong about the cause, the projections are probably still right. So I think we're fucked either way. Some place more than others. Me, I'm planning on holing up in Oregon with the in-laws to prepare to defend the state's water resources from invading Californians.
    - harryh 13y ago
      Ya, if anything we might be less fucked if it's human caused. Because that way we have some hope (however small) of reducing our carbon emissions. If it's something else out of our control then we could be well and truly fucked. Unless it just suddenly stops happening. Stay tuned! Oregon does seem like a pretty good plan.
  - flagnog 13y ago
    either way, adapt or die - I don't know that we can do enough to change the climate, or even if we should attempt it, and make the cure worse than the projections.
btilly 13y ago
There is a form of argument which is essentially to take all incoming facts, pattern match them against your existing beliefs, then spit out a matching statement with no evidence of comprehension. This is very common in certain subjects, including politics. This form of argument is not wanted here. Please do not engage in it. If you read the article with comprehension you'd find that global warming is happening as predicted, but on the conservative side of those predictions. Go out and investigate for yourself. You'll find that the error bars on those predictions remain large. Though smaller than they were. And the conclusion that it is human-caused has only become better supported with time.
- ramblerman 13y ago
  > There is a form of argument which is essentially to take all incoming facts, pattern match them against your existing beliefs, then spit out a matching statement with no evidence of comprehension. This is very common in certain subjects, including politics. This is very true on both sides of this argument though.
  - btilly 13y ago
    This is very true on both sides of any argument about anything that people attach tribal identity to. Which includes politics, religion, sports, choice of editor, one true indent style... Knowing this I try to apply increased scrutiny on arguments from people that I fundamentally agree with, because I know that if I don't do it consciously, then I'll just nod in blind stupidity. I won't claim that I do a good job at it. But I will say that the willingness to take the effort has resulted in my changing opinions on a number of topics over the years. But, in this case, taking an article that says, "We found warming at 80% of previous average prediction, but well within previous predictions" and concluding that climate science is all bunk clearly indicates a lack of comprehension for what the article actually said.
    - flagnog 13y ago
      or we've been lucky so far with the predictions, or been able to fit our predictions to match the data. This is just PREDICTIONS. it's not settled science - meteorologists have been able to stretch their predictions out to a couple of days, but the system is too chaotic for long-term predictions. It's not all bunk, but it's not a perfectly accurate 'science', either, and concluding that it's not indicates a lack of comprehension of the difference between theory and settled fact. Now, I'm not saying we should foul our nest, just that we don't know exactly what is going to happen, given our current understanding of long-term climate change.
ori_b 13y ago
Right, we don't fully understand it. Our models have large error margins, and while they all agree on the trend, the specifics are relatively vague. More research is needed. What we do understand, on the other hand, tells us we should be extremely conservative when it comes to the environment, and avoid pumping it full of greenhouse gasses, because having the planet heat up may lead to really bad things happening. I don't get this "We don't understand what's going on, therefore we can keep making a mess" argument that so many people seem to be making.

by flagnog 13y ago

in other words: we don't understand it, but we're still going to blame it on mankind. we can make short range predictions, but still don't know all of the variables that are controlling the climate.

rayiner 13y ago

In still other words: it doesn't matter what's causing it, we're fucked if the average temperature in the breadbasket of the U.S. becomes similar to that of Texas, as is projected. The question isn't: did we cause it, the question is: can we slow it down?

harryh 13y ago
If mankind is causing it, then we're likely to keep causing it, and be fucked in the way you describe. If mankind is not causing it, then we don't know what's going on and our predictions about the long term (next 100 years) trend are likely wrong.
- rayiner 13y ago
  The projections are at least partly or mostly based on the trends, which means that even if scientists are wrong about the cause, the projections are probably still right. So I think we're fucked either way. Some place more than others. Me, I'm planning on holing up in Oregon with the in-laws to prepare to defend the state's water resources from invading Californians.
  - harryh 13y ago
    Ya, if anything we might be less fucked if it's human caused. Because that way we have some hope (however small) of reducing our carbon emissions. If it's something else out of our control then we could be well and truly fucked. Unless it just suddenly stops happening. Stay tuned! Oregon does seem like a pretty good plan.
- flagnog 13y ago
  either way, adapt or die - I don't know that we can do enough to change the climate, or even if we should attempt it, and make the cure worse than the projections.

btilly 13y ago

There is a form of argument which is essentially to take all incoming facts, pattern match them against your existing beliefs, then spit out a matching statement with no evidence of comprehension. This is very common in certain subjects, including politics. This form of argument is not wanted here. Please do not engage in it. If you read the article with comprehension you'd find that global warming is happening as predicted, but on the conservative side of those predictions. Go out and investigate for yourself. You'll find that the error bars on those predictions remain large. Though smaller than they were. And the conclusion that it is human-caused has only become better supported with time.

ramblerman 13y ago
> There is a form of argument which is essentially to take all incoming facts, pattern match them against your existing beliefs, then spit out a matching statement with no evidence of comprehension. This is very common in certain subjects, including politics. This is very true on both sides of this argument though.
- btilly 13y ago
  This is very true on both sides of any argument about anything that people attach tribal identity to. Which includes politics, religion, sports, choice of editor, one true indent style... Knowing this I try to apply increased scrutiny on arguments from people that I fundamentally agree with, because I know that if I don't do it consciously, then I'll just nod in blind stupidity. I won't claim that I do a good job at it. But I will say that the willingness to take the effort has resulted in my changing opinions on a number of topics over the years. But, in this case, taking an article that says, "We found warming at 80% of previous average prediction, but well within previous predictions" and concluding that climate science is all bunk clearly indicates a lack of comprehension for what the article actually said.
  - flagnog 13y ago
    or we've been lucky so far with the predictions, or been able to fit our predictions to match the data. This is just PREDICTIONS. it's not settled science - meteorologists have been able to stretch their predictions out to a couple of days, but the system is too chaotic for long-term predictions. It's not all bunk, but it's not a perfectly accurate 'science', either, and concluding that it's not indicates a lack of comprehension of the difference between theory and settled fact. Now, I'm not saying we should foul our nest, just that we don't know exactly what is going to happen, given our current understanding of long-term climate change.

ori_b 13y ago

Right, we don't fully understand it. Our models have large error margins, and while they all agree on the trend, the specifics are relatively vague. More research is needed. What we do understand, on the other hand, tells us we should be extremely conservative when it comes to the environment, and avoid pumping it full of greenhouse gasses, because having the planet heat up may lead to really bad things happening. I don't get this "We don't understand what's going on, therefore we can keep making a mess" argument that so many people seem to be making.