4 ms·
Who is trivializing anything? This is what is so bizarre about these discussions, and why I use the term "Warmist": because it identifies a nearly religious zea
by tjradcliffe 12y ago
Who is trivializing anything? This is what is so bizarre about these discussions, and why I use the term "Warmist": because it identifies a nearly religious zeal on the part of some non-scientists who insist that anyone who does anything other than repeat the mantra "the science is settled; we must implement every imaginable solution except nuclear power" is somehow "trivializing" the issue.
I'm clearly on the record as being concerned about climate change and strongly in favour of implementing social policies (including carbon taxes) that will a) reduce GHG emissions and b) protect the most vulnerable, but because I don't quack like precisely the right kind of duck I'm routinely accused of somehow trivializing something, or being the enemy (this is not the first time I've had this kind of discussion, obviously). This is what you see from rival religions, not from scientists. I was involved in the 17 keV neutrino controversy, so I'm no stranger to scientific disagreement, and it simply doesn't have this strange dynamic.
If anyone is trivializing anything, it is Warmists trivializing physics. For example, why anyone would go from a 0.5% change in energy budget to a 0.5% change in absolute temperature is beyond me. Heating and temperature in the atmosphere are connected by complex and non-linear factors, which is one of the reasons we need to do modelling in the first place. Even in the simplest case of a black body the non-linear Stephan-Bolzmann law applies, not Newton's law of cooling (which is linear, but irrelevant to this case.)
So the argument you're making is not even wrong: it simply doesn't speak to the question of what the plausible effect of climate change on the Earth in general and humanity in particular will be.
This kind of argument just feeds the Denialist trolls who are doing so much damage to this discourse, because they will pick up on your errors and cry "hoax!" and other such nonsense rather than "honest, innocent and naive mistake", which in fairness what I think your error most likely is.
Finally, as I said above, I've had this kind of discussion before and it's never ended well, so I'm going to stop here and let you have the last word. Enjoy!
- imanaccount247 12y agoYou aren't having a discussion. You are arrogantly dismissing discussion and proclaiming yourself not just right, but beyond reproach, while strawmanning your opposition.
- defen 12y agoHow is it a strawman? GP said that a 0.5% increase in energy would correspond to a 0.5% increase in temperature. That's manifestly wrong.
- quink 12y agoNo I didn't. I said that it's something like that from a 30,000 view. I even put being happy about a +/- 50% difference without a problem. But if I put 1 energy into object x, at the simplest I'll get something about 1 temperature more if that object is in a vacuum, given enough time. Sure, it's never as simple as that, but that's all I was saying, plus/minus several dozen percent, from a bird's eye view. And greenhouse gases don't just trap incoming energy, but also serve to suppress black body radiation... and are 50% higher now than they were some centuries ago. So, point being, do I agree with you that black body radiation is the ultimate end to climate change? Absolutely. But I've just got to look over at Venus and the Sun to see how that dynamic plays out elsewhere and it's much hotter than 300 K.
- imanaccount247 12y agoBecause this: >it identifies a nearly religious zeal on the part of some non-scientists who insist that anyone who does anything other than repeat the mantra "the science is settled; we must implement every imaginable solution except nuclear power" Is not a response to what was said. It is a response to a fantasy opponent that was made up.
- cema 12y agoI agree that global warming attracts religious types. As a result, it is generally hard to have a serious conversation about it. HN has a better ratio of science vs religion, luckily.
- benjohnson 12y agoI'd deeply religious - and I concur. Based on my experience, the debate about Global Warming is is mostly polemical. In my opinion, a debate about measurable natural phenomena should be scientific - where a single verifiable fact trumps all previous consensus and conjecture.
- amathstudent 12y agoWhat a lovely comment!