They model the climate with super computers and they subtract out the CO2 humans have put up into the atmosphere. That tells us what the climate would be like without our contribution. 100s of scientists did that. That's where the IPCC came from. — frank

Frank, I was a computer programmer for the last 40 years. Just because they "model the climate with super computers" doesn't prove that they are correct. A climate model is based on many assumptions. To "subtract out the CO2 humans have put up into the atmosphere" they need to know how big the effect is. This relies on assumptions. The IPCC says that there is high confidence that the ECS is within the range of 2.5 °C to 4 °C, with a best estimate of 3 °C. That is a very wide range. Which value did the climate scientists use?

If 100s of climate scientists make the same incorrect assumptions then they will all get the same incorrect answers. If the majority of people think that the earth if flat it doesn't mean that the earth really is flat.

But kudos for almost finding a mistake in a news item. :roll: — unenlightened

I didn't say that the news item is wrong. What I said is based on the assumption that the news item is correct.

I think he's just here to poke unenlightened in the butt.
— frank

Always happy to be someone's significant other. :joke: — unenlightened

I am more of a breast type of guy. :wink:

But it's the human way of learning (if learning happens at all): learning from your mistakes and simply learning by doing. — ssu

But doing the wrong thing based on what we think we know about global-warming/climate-change is a VERY expensive mistake.

The IPCC says that there is high confidence that the ECS is within the range of 2.5 °C to 4 °C, with a best estimate of 3 °C. That is a very wide range. — Agree-to-Disagree

I just saw a news thing that said the revised ECS is 4.8. It would be sweet if the revised ECS was lower than previously thought. It's higher though. That's how I know I haven't stumbled into an alternate universe. The news is worse than expected. :worry:

If 100s of climate scientists make the same incorrect assumptions then they will all get the same incorrect answers. If the majority of people think that the earth if flat it doesn't mean that the earth really is flat. — Agree-to-Disagree

True. I was just answering the question you asked.

Let's say you're right and the impending climate crisis is zero percent due to human activity, do you propose we do nothing to address it? — LuckyR

I think that we should slowly move away from using fossil fuels. But slowly enough to not cause very large problems. When the technology is really better than fossil fuels then people will be queuing up to get it. They won't need subsidies and pushing.

The fact is that sea levels are rising. Whether due to human activity or not. We need to make infrastructure changes for this. But infrastructure eventually needs replacing anyway, and this is an opportunity to improve it.

I just saw a news thing that said the revised ECS is 4.8. — frank

Okay. If it was in the news then it must be correct. :wink:

But doing the wrong thing based on what we think we know about global-warming/climate-change is a VERY expensive mistake. — Agree-to-Disagree

You aren't sufficiently informed, to speak with anywhere near the authority you pretend to. The VERY expensive mistake, of allowing the CO2 levels to continue to rise, has been ongoing for decades.

The notion of dumping sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere has been under consideration for a long time:

Mikhail Budyko is believed to have been the first, in 1974, to put forth the concept of artificial solar radiation management with stratospheric sulfate aerosols if global warming ever became a pressing issue.[150] Such controversial climate engineering proposals for global dimming have sometimes been called a "Budyko Blanket".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injection#History

It's indicative of how bad we have let it get, that polluting the atmosphere in additional ways has to be considered as a possible option.

Okay. If it was in the news then it must be correct. :wink: — Agree-to-Disagree

How about some basic epistemology?

If an event is reported in the news, that is evidence the event happened, correct? Mind you, not conclusive proof, but evidence.

And if several news stations report the event, then it is more likely the event did occur, correct? It is possible they're all simply repeating the same story, or have made the exact same error, but prima facie it still increases the odds.

If an event is reported in the news, that is evidence the event happened, correct? Mind you, not conclusive proof, but evidence. — Echarmion

If it bleeds, it leads.

Not interested? Ok then. What are you doing here though?

That sort of thing used to be the norm. But now in the Post Truth era, one decides on an expedient conclusion, then cherrypicks data to support the predetermined conclusion. You really need to get with the times...

If an event is reported in the news, that is evidence the event happened, correct? Mind you, not conclusive proof, but evidence. — Echarmion

So according to you there is evidence for horoscopes, the loch ness monster, bigfoot, yeti, aliens, UFO's, homeopathy, conspiracy theories, ghosts, etc.

These subjects are in the news repeatedly, but that doesn't mean that the odds of them being true is increased.

The ECS has been notoriously difficult to pin down. Even after decades of scientific investigation the IPCC says that there is high confidence that the ECS is within the range of 2.5 °C to 4 °C, with a best estimate of 3 °C. So why should we suddenly believe a new value of 4.8 °C that is reported in the news? This is outside of the high confidence range stated by the IPCC. And as far as I know the IPCC has not accepted this new value.

What are you doing here though? — Echarmion

I am discussing climate change. What are you doing here?

It's true that predictions about future climate change are in a range, not precise numbers.

So according to you there is evidence for horoscopes, the loch ness monster, bigfoot, yeti, aliens, UFO's, homeopathy, conspiracy theories, ghosts, etc. — Agree-to-Disagree

Sure. There's evidence.

These subjects are in the news repeatedly, but that doesn't mean that the odds of them being true is increased. — Agree-to-Disagree

I was referring to an event specifically, that means something happening at a specific time and place. Things get trickier when we deal with other subjects more broadly, and I wanted to start simple.

Assume you know nothing about either the event X or the sources. In the three scenarios:

A) There's no reporting on X,
B) a single source is reporting X happened,
C) 10 sources report X happened,

would you not agree that the chance that X did actually happen is highest in scenario C?

The ECS has been notoriously difficult to pin down. Even after decades of scientific investigation the IPCC says that there is high confidence that the ECS is within the range of 2.5 °C to 4 °C, with a best estimate of 3 °C. So why should we suddenly believe a new value of 4.8 °C that is reported in the news? This is outside of the high confidence range stated by the IPCC. And as far as I know the IPCC has not accepted this new value. — Agree-to-Disagree

I'm making no argument regarding that specific claim.

I am discussing climate change. What are you doing here? — Agree-to-Disagree

Are you? Because it doesn't look like that's what you're doing.

I am discussing climate change. What are you doing here?
— Agree-to-Disagree

Are you? Because it doesn't look like that's what you're doing. — Echarmion

I have recently posted about:
- the ECS
- my belief that we should slowly move away from using fossil fuels
- what I think we should do about rising sea levels
- a news item with the title "2023 'virtually certain' to be warmest in 125,000 years - EU scientists"
- a news item with the title "Scientists warn Earth warming faster than expected — due to reduction in ship pollution"
- the reason why the climate scientist James Hansen thinks that the Earth is warming faster than expected

Do you think that these topics are not relevant to climate change?

Do you think that these topics are not relevant to climate change? — Agree-to-Disagree

They are. But it seems to me you're not interested in what everyone else has to say, and rather in having a soap box to display your "scepticism". Which I'm putting in quotes because unlike actual scepticism, it mostly looks like motivated reasoning adopting the aesthetics of scepticism.

Case in point being that you only reply to the bits of posts that you feel comfortable with, ignoring the rest.

They are. But it seems to me you're not interested in what everyone else has to say, and rather in having a soap box to display your "scepticism". Which I'm putting in quotes because unlike actual scepticism, it mostly looks like motivated reasoning adopting the aesthetics of scepticism.

Case in point being that you only reply to the bits of posts that you feel comfortable with, ignoring the rest. — Echarmion

A bad faith poster, basically, cherrypicking evidence to support a position they never explicitly declare, and so never have to defend or concede. A time-waster, who will never give up because time wasting is the whole project, and communication is not on the agenda.

I do wonder why though. What is the specific motivation?

We have been lied to and manipulated so much that trust has been lost in politicians, scientists, and the media. It is impossible now to trust authority, and so people are left rudderless, and prey to any fantastic conspiracy theory. To be contrarian is just another masquerade of sceptical rigour - the less one knows about something the more fair-mind one must be in opposing whatever is the consensus. Perhaps we never should have trusted them, perhaps we never did. I blame psychology as the science of lies; it has driven us all insane.

But it seems to me you're not interested in what everyone else has to say, and rather in having a soap box to display your "scepticism". — Echarmion

I am interested in what other people have to say. I am inviting people to comment on the topics that I post about. If you have anything constructive to say then you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

Case in point being that you only reply to the bits of posts that you feel comfortable with, ignoring the rest. — Echarmion

Do you reply to every bit of every post? Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

A bad faith poster, basically, cherrypicking evidence to support a position they never explicitly declare, and so never have to defend or concede. A time-waster, who will never give up because time wasting is the whole project, and communication is not on the agenda. — unenlightened

You are attacking me personally without commenting on what I have said. Making an ad hominem attack on a Philosophy Forum is the ultimate irony.

I already addressed what you said, and my complaint that you quote is that you deal in innuendo and never even have a point to make. If you actually made an argument, I would do my best to address it, but since you confine yourself to 'whataboutisms' and feeble attempts to undermine climate science from a position of sublime ignorance, there is little but your personality to go at. But I don't blame you really, you are only a pawn in their game.

but since you confine yourself to 'whataboutisms' and feeble attempts to undermine climate science from a position of sublime ignorance, there is little but your personality to go at. — unenlightened

I must be young at heart then at 71 and three quarters. — unenlightened

At least I don't tell lies to support my comments.

But I don't blame you really, you are only a pawn in their game. — unenlightened

Oh, the irony, it burns.

Burning irony is a major contributor to global warming.

Burning irony is a major contributor to global warming. — BC

One could say that, in a sense, spite really is a major contributor.

Does one get any rest from spite, despite a respite from spite? I mean, spite and then re-spite? Can we de-spite somebody, the way one de-worms a dog?

No wonder the world is getting hotter.

Does one get any rest from spite, despite a respite from spite? I mean, spite and then re-spite? Can we de-spite somebody, the way one de-worms a dog? — BC

You're onto something. I'm stuck on spite. How do I get respite? Is it like acquiring worms?