Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
-1=e^ipi

Effects/Implications of Climate Change on Jetstreams

Recommended Posts

What's so difficult about understanding what the term vast means?

I already answered that. Because there are multiple definitions and it means different things for different people. Which is why I ask you to define it for the sake of the discussion. In science it is important to have clear definitions.

I don't read them if I don't understand the technical terms and mathematical language used in them. If I think it's important to me that I understand the implications of the information they contain I rely on plain everyday English interpretations written by people who do understand them.

I.e. You want to use appeal to authority fallacy to back up your dogma, but do not want your dogma challenged or to actually understand the 'science' itself (because that would take effort, and it is much easier to believe in dogma).

It is very dangerous for a large segment of the population to advocate extreme CO2 mitigation policies when then understand basically 0 of the 'science' behind it and they rely on appeal to authority and ad hominem to make arguments. It makes it easy for people with certain agendas to use misinformation to get what they want (such as the common claim 'Science tells us we must drastically cut CO2 emissions or it is the end of the world!').

Thankfully your paper contained some fairly plain easy to understand terms that made it's thrust and conclusion apparent right off the bat.

I.e. you looked at the first two words then ignored the post because it said 'climate alarmist'. Being a climate alarmist, you view that the paper is hostile to your beliefs and therefore assume that it is wrong rather than actually reading and examining the arguments that are written. That is dogmatic thinking (the complete opposite of science).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In science it is important to have clear definitions.

This is a plain English discussion and vast is quite sufficient.

I.e. You want to use appeal to authority fallacy to back up your dogma, but do not want your dogma challenged or to actually understand the 'science' itself (because that would take effort, and it is much easier to believe in dogma).

I want to do what millions upon millions of people do all the time when faced with technical issues that are beyond their ken - consult and weigh the opinions of experts and scientists who do understand them. Juries, various boards, committees, politicians and even electorates do this when charged with deciding a course of action on technically and academically challenging issues all the time. This is the normal methodology that laymen who are wise enough to know their limitations are expected to follow.

It is very dangerous for a large segment of the population to advocate extreme CO2 mitigation policies when then understand basically 0 of the 'science' behind it and they rely on appeal to authority and ad hominem to make arguments. It makes it easy for people with certain agendas to use misinformation to get what they want (such as the common claim 'Science tells us we must drastically cut CO2 emissions or it is the end of the world!').

The people with agendas are those who jump up and down and freak out about ad hominems and appeal to authority fallacies, usually when they're frustrated in their attempts to advance their agendas.

I.e. you looked at the first two words then ignored the post because it said 'climate alarmist'. Being a climate alarmist, you view that the paper is hostile to your beliefs and therefore assume that it is wrong rather than actually reading and examining the arguments that are written. That is dogmatic thinking (the complete opposite of science).

I scanned your paper and I saw it was incomprehensible. If I see the vast vast amount of scientific consensus suddenly start melting like a retreating glacier and the brakes slamming down on their enthusiasm for mitigation following the release of your paper my faith in science will be confirmed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a plain English discussion and vast is quite sufficient.

Vast isn't close sufficient to define a consensus. I could say 'the consensus of hamburgers is vast', but that gives no information as to what the 'consensus of hamburgers' is.

I want to do what millions upon millions of people do all the time when faced with technical issues that are beyond their ken - consult and weigh the opinions of experts and scientists who do understand them.

And millions upon millions of people also believe in religious faerie tales from thousands of years ago. It does not make them correct.

This is an 'argumentum ad populum' fallacy by the way. Appeal to the people.

How about you just use your brain to examine some of the evidence yourself? Have you no ounce of skepticism at all?

Juries, various boards, committees, politicians and even electorates do this when charged with deciding a course of action on technically and academically challenging issues all the time. This is the normal methodology that laymen who are wise enough to know their limitations are expected to follow.

Again, appeal to the people...

Look, this kind of 'blind faith' into stuff you are authoritatively told is extremely dangerous.

I'm sure Saudi Arabia and Iran consult 'religious experts' when deciding how many stones they should use to stone rape victims.

I'm sure the people in the US that choose not to give their children vaccines have been convinced by 'experts' that vaccines cause autism.

I'm sure that white supremacists in the US south in like the 1930's were told by 'expert scientists' that negros are mentally inferior to white people.

Should I continue?

If you don't want to think for your self, then why do you insist on advocating extreme CO2 mitigation policies? Why not let the 'experts' that can at least think for themselves to do that?

The people with agendas are those who jump up and down and freak out about ad hominems and appeal to authority fallacies, usually when they're frustrated in their attempts to advance their agendas.

Are you seriously trying to use this deflection tactic to justify the use of logical fallacies?

I scanned your paper and I saw it was incomprehensible.

It is not incomprehensible. Try using your brain.

If I see the vast vast amount of scientific consensus suddenly start melting like a retreating glacier and the brakes slamming down on their enthusiasm for mitigation following the release of your paper my faith in science will be confirmed.

What challenges to 'the consensus' have I made in the first post? None... probably... but then again 'the consensus' has not been defined by you.

What I did do was examine some unsupported claims made by climate alarmists with regards to changes to the jetstream and evaluate its truth. I went a step further and made an attempt to quantify the expected changes for the benefit of the discussion. I then summarized the results in the summary for those that were too lazy to read the methodology and reasoning. After that I did a tl;dr for those that were too lazy to read the first post. But clearly you don't even want to bother reading that...

Also the fact that you have 'faith' in science really says a lot about how you approach things. Having 'faith' in anything is contrary to the scientific methodology. Science is a methodology for finding truth using observation, skepticism, principles like Occum's razor, etc. Faith is the complete opposite of science.

Edited by -1=e^ipi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to JPL scientists, the Thwaites Glacier could slip into the antarctic chuck in 200 years or so and up goes sea level 4 feet or so. This global warming is great, my grandkids will have waterfront property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to JPL scientists, the Thwaites Glacier could slip into the antarctic chuck in 200 years or so and up goes sea level 4 feet or so. This global warming is great, my grandkids will have waterfront property.

Most places in the world already have tides in excess of 4ft. 400 years is a lot of time to build up seawalls and other defenses which makes this potential problem much lower on the worry list than problems like a major earthquake or an alien invasion. Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most places in the world already have tides in excess of 4ft. 400 years is a lot of time to build up seawalls and other defenses which makes this potential problem much lower on the worry list than problems like a major earthquake or an alien invasion.

And there are places that have 10 foot tides. It has nothing to do with tides. It's sea level rise. Think about it like this, what happens when you drop an ice cube in a glass of water? And where I live I wont need a seawall to stave off 4 feet, but the folks in the Maldives will need thousands of miles of seawalls, so they will just leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And there are places that have 10 foot tides. It has nothing to do with tides. It's sea level rise.

A tide is a change in sea level. Increase in sea level is no different than an increase in tides and since most low lying cities already have protections against tides and storm surges a sea level rise that is of the same order of a magnitude is no big deal - especially if they have 400+ years to plan.

And where I live I wont need a seawall to stave off 4 feet, but the folks in the Maldives will need thousands of miles of seawalls, so they will just leave.

So? The have 400 years to make plans. It is simply not a problem that is worth worrying about. Many more important issues exist. This is especially true since climate science predictions are slightly less credible than astrology. Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A tide is a change in sea level. Increase in sea level is no different than an increase in tides and since most low lying cities already have protections against tides and storm surges a sea level rise that is of the same order of a magnitude is no big deal - especially if they have 400+ years to plan.

So? The have 400 years to make plans. It is simply not a problem that is worth worrying about. Many more important issues exist. This is especially true since climate science predictions are slightly less credible than astrology.

I didn't know Jet Propulsion Labs worked with astrology, or NASA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So? The have 400 years to make plans. It is simply not a problem that is worth worrying about. Many more important issues exist. This is especially true since climate science predictions are slightly less credible than astrology.

There are many nations in the south pacific who do not have the money to build these seawalls that you speak of. Have a look at Tuvalu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't know Jet Propulsion Labs worked with astrology, or NASA.

A tide is a change in sea level. Increase in sea level is no different than an increase in tides and since most low lying cities already have protections against tides and storm surges a sea level rise that is of the same order of a magnitude is no big deal - especially if they have 400+ years to plan.

So? The have 400 years to make plans. It is simply not a problem that is worth worrying about. Many more important issues exist. This is especially true since climate science predictions are slightly less credible than astrology.

Tides are controlled by the gravitational effect of the moon and the sun. Sea level is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many nations in the south pacific who do not have the money to build these seawalls that you speak of.

Tuvalu is a coral atoll that floats on the ocean. It will rise with sea level. In fact, studies have shown that most atolls have increased in size even as the sea level has risen over the last 100 years. That said, the population living on these atolls is screwing up the delicate geology with construction so they could run into problems just like countries that pollute their farmland run into problems but that does not mean the sea level rising is a something anyone else should care about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't know Jet Propulsion Labs worked with astrology, or NASA.

I take it you have trouble with reading comprehension. I said:

"climate science predictions are slightly less credible than astrology".

This sentence does not say that climate science and astrology are the same or that anyone working on climate science is working on astrology. It says they are different and that astrology is more credible. It also does not say climate science is not credible. it says climate science "predictions" are not credible.

Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tides are controlled by the gravitational effect of the moon and the sun. Sea level is not.

So what? What people care about is how high the water is and how big a sea wall to build. It makes no difference if the water level rises due to a general increase in sea level or if it is rising because of tides or storm surges. The peak water level is what matters. If I have a sea what that already deals with 10 ft tides then adding another 4 ft to deal with sea level rise is not huge additional effort since I already have to build the wall. Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what? What people care about is how high the water is and how big a sea wall to build. It makes no difference if the water level rises due to a general increase in sea level or if it is rising because of tides or storm surges. The peak water level is what matters. If I have a sea what that already deals with 10 ft tides then adding another 4 ft to deal with sea level rise is not huge additional effort since I already have to build the wall.

It makes quite a difference when you're trying to figure out how high to build your seawall. And as WC Runner pointed out, there are a lot of people for whom building such seawalls is unattainable because of both scope and cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take it you have trouble with reading comprehension. I said:

"climate science predictions are slightly less credible than astrology".

This sentence does not say that climate science and astrology are the same or that anyone working on climate science is working on astrology. It says they are different and that astrology is more credible. It also does not say climate science is not credible. it says climate science "predictions" are not credible.

My reading comprehension is fine. The scientist's I am quoting aren't astrologers. They're scientist's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes quite a difference when you're trying to figure out how high to build your seawall. And as WC Runner pointed out, there are a lot of people for whom building such seawalls is unattainable because of both scope and cost.

We are talking 400 years. People will be a lot wealthier. What is common place today was unattainable even 50 years ago - never mind 400. The biggest mistake doom mongers make is to assume society will stay still. It is completely irrational. Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are talking 400 years. People will be a lot wealthier. What is common place today was unattainable even 50 years ago - never mind 400.

Boy there's wishful thinking. BTW, JPL says it could be as little as 200 years. Hard to get a firm handle as it's not the melt, it's the speed of the slide that determines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That said, the population living on these atolls is screwing up the delicate geology with construction so they could run into problems just like countries that pollute their farmland run into problems but that does not mean the sea level rising is a something anyone else should care about.

And is not the population inhabiting our planet earth screwing up the delicate geology with planet earth? So, because Tuvalu, a small island in the south pacific, that no one has really heard of, they make no difference in the big picture even though families who inhabit this island are impacted by global warming. How do we explain to them that they have to relocate to a bigger island because sorry, we burned too many fossel fuels for them to survive on their own island.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My reading comprehension is fine. The scientist's I am quoting aren't astrologers. They're scientist's.

ROTFLMAO. Your response proves again that you have a HUGE problem with reading comprehension. There is really no point in discussing it further until you come up with a response that demonstrates you actually understood the words I wrote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...