Is climate hysteria going too far?

[Endus]

Versus getting out of the mid-to-long-term prophecy game altogether. Figure out new ways to achieve our goals instead of looking to some kind of crystal ball.

Modelling is standard scientific methodology. It isn't remotely unique to climate science. Nor is it "prophecy". It isn't even a specific, targeted prediction; models predict ranges of outcomes based on assumptions of how conditions will or will not change in the interim. If conditions change in a way that lies outside those assumptions, that does not mean the model was "wrong", at all. That kind of claim demonstrates a failure to understand what modelling is, and what it's used for.

https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/primer/climate-models

Willfully misrepresenting basic scientific methodology like you're doing is not an argument.

[PC2]

Modelling is standard scientific methodology. It isn't remotely unique to climate science. Nor is it "prophecy". It isn't even a specific, targeted prediction; models predict ranges of outcomes based on assumptions of how conditions will or will not change in the interim. If conditions change in a way that lies outside those assumptions, that does not mean the model was "wrong", at all. That kind of claim demonstrates a failure to understand what modelling is, and what it's used for.

https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/primer/climate-models

Willfully misrepresenting basic scientific methodology like you're doing is not an argument.

Science can't and isn't about predicting the future of society though. Science is about constraining theories to what is physically testable, falsifiable, and experimentally replicatable.

I think what you're referring to is a climate simulation. Which most certainly can't predict the future, not only because the vast amount of accumulated error over time, but also because any climate model lacks the most causally important thing on the planet. Which is the 7+ billion problem solvers that can't be simulated in a model on a HPC.

[breadisfunny]

Listen to an all out mealy mouthed hypocrite?

NO

what about the other scientists?

[Celista]

If anything the media is downplaying the problem and people have their heads stuck in the sand, when you read the data it becomes genuinely scary. Stuff like parts of the US becoming uninhabitable in 50 years and worldwide famine/drought conditions.

Hopefully those estimates are wrong (who would want them to be right?) but it's not looking good.

[Endus]

Science can't and isn't about predicting the future of society though. Science is about constraining theories to what is physically testable, falsifiable, and experimentally replicatable.

I think what you're referring to is a climate simulation. Which most certainly can't predict the future, not only because the vast amount of accumulated error over time, but also because any climate model lacks the most causally important thing on the planet. Which is the 7+ billion problem solvers that can't be simulated in a model on a HPC.

Again, I'm just going to roll my eyes, because what you're doing is flagrantly misrepresenting scientific methodology, and pretending it's something it's not.

This isn't you making a point, this is you refusing to understand some fairly basic concepts. Which I've already linked content explaining, and I'm not wasting time when you've clearly chosen to ignore it.

[PC2]

Again, I'm just going to roll my eyes, because what you're doing is flagrantly misrepresenting scientific methodology, and pretending it's something it's not.

This isn't you making a point, this is you refusing to understand some fairly basic concepts. Which I've already linked content explaining, and I'm not wasting time when you've clearly chosen to ignore it.

?? I wasn't even talking about the scientific method at all. What I was saying is that the future can't be predicted to any meaningful extent, not by science or anything else

However, if you're thinking about prediction within the context of a particular scientific experiment then sure, you could predict that if you set up a few mirrors, then turn on a laser a photon will end up in a certain location. But that's not the kind of prediction I'm talking about.

[Celista]

Today at lunch, a colleague literally said that he has nights where he literally cries himself to sleep because of climate anxiety. An acquaintance keeps writing on facebook about how bad she feels and that she considers self harm. A relative is talking all the time about how bad he feels when he's taking the bus and it's struggling uphill, because he can "feel all the co2 spitting out from the exhaust pipe", and he's taken sick leaves several times because of it.

We don't need to make up ridiculous stories in order to discuss climate change.

[PC2]

If anything the media is downplaying the problem and people have their heads stuck in the sand, when you read the data it becomes genuinely scary. Stuff like parts of the US becoming uninhabitable in 50 years and worldwide famine/drought conditions.

Hopefully those estimates are wrong (who would want them to be right?) but it's not looking good.

That's just speculation and not any kind of 'scientific fact'. Most of where the 7+ billion people are would be uninhabitable if it wasn't for technological advancement that made it habitable to more than a small tribe. Vast amounts of agricultural fields are even in "desert" regions but they are made productive due to increases in agricultural and civil engineering knowledge. Thinking of "habitability" purely as a function of a climate metric is highly flawed reasoning because it ignores the fact that one of the main things that people do is transform previously uninhabitable places to be more habitable for more people.

[breadisfunny]

Again, I'm just going to roll my eyes, because what you're doing is flagrantly misrepresenting scientific methodology, and pretending it's something it's not.

This isn't you making a point, this is you refusing to understand some fairly basic concepts. Which I've already linked content explaining, and I'm not wasting time when you've clearly chosen to ignore it.

it's what primarycolor does in every thread about global warming. sticks his head in the sand and plays the part of a 5 yr old who doesn't understand basic concepts.

[Aehl]

Hiya Jaylock, did you get banned from the WOW forums again?

[Aehl]

Only you arent a scientist, have admitted you dont actually HAVE any degrees in climate science and hence are not an expert. You have loads of opinions, but last time I looked, "urban planning" isnt on any list of scientific disciplines that relate to climate science.

You have an opinion and little else.

[nRes]

It's not going too far, it's just looking at generally irrelevant solutions. Attempting to reduce small vehicle usage when the focus should be more on diesel shipping and airline use, for example.

We are not going to reverse the course the planet is on anyhow, even with the most stringent, unilateral efforts.

Yeah, no. You're also thinking of irrelevant solutions. The 2 biggest driving factors of pollution worldwide are fossil fuels and animal agriculture(them burgers). The whole transport industry combined(airplanes included) creates less pollution than animal agriculture and many times less than fossil fuels. Currently the only changes that can actually positively affect climate change are investing into more alternatives to fossil fuels and cutting all subsidies to meat production worldwide, so that the product reflects the toll it takes to produce and the consumption needs to be reduced significantly. Both of those solutions require heavy government involvement, however anyone can cut down on meat and dairy, so saying the solutions are not in the hands of regular people is simply untrue. They are, just not in buying electric cars and using plastic straws, it's about what you put on your plates.

[Noradin]

Which is the 7+ billion problem solvers that can't be simulated in a model on a HPC.

Are you inlcuding yourself in that number?
Just checking...

- - - Updated - - -

Only you arent a scientist, have admitted you dont actually HAVE any degrees in climate science and hence are not an expert. You have loads of opinions, but last time I looked, "urban planning" isnt on any list of scientific disciplines that relate to climate science.

Is that your attempt at predicting the future?

[PC2]

it's what primarycolor does in every thread about global warming. sticks his head in the sand and plays the part of a 5 yr old who doesn't understand basic concepts.

No, what I do is question people who predict doom and ask them how exactly they arrived at the conclusion. Which this is the only field that is entirely uncritical of their ability to determine the future.

[Endus]

Only you arent a scientist, have admitted you dont actually HAVE any degrees in climate science and hence are not an expert. You have loads of opinions, but last time I looked, "urban planning" isnt on any list of scientific disciplines that relate to climate science.

You have an opinion and little else.

My work is in climate adaptation, which isn't science in the same way mechanical engineering isn't science. You kind of have to understand science to do it, though.

Meanwhile, you're just citing conspiracy blogs and nutcases, and presenting no actual defensible argument, because you're flat out ignoring the facts.

Climate change deniers are in the same class as flat-earthers.

- - - Updated - - -

No, what I do is question people who predict doom and ask them how exactly they arrived at the conclusion. Which this is the only field that is entirely uncritical of their ability to determine the future.

I mean, the explanations are all clearly described and explained. Why haven't you made any effort to understand them?

Edit: And that's without pointing out that the modelled predictions are about specific quantifiable outcomes, the idea that these are "doom" isn't coming from the scientists.

[Pterodactylus]

Why haven't you made any effort to understand them?

PC2 tried to imply that all of geology is invalidated because of bad economic hindcasting models.

[wunksta]

What sea level rise?

Sea levels were rising by 1.7mm per year before the 90s, then about 2.5mm per year in the 1990s to about 3.4mm per year today.

The vanishing of Isle de Jean Charles, home to members of the Biloxi-Chitimacha-Choctaw tribe, might take another decade or even five. On the other hand, one more big storm could finally end its viability for human occupation permanently.

Marking the kick-off of what will be the first climate resettlement of its kind in the entire United States, land had been chosen an hour’s drive to the north for a whole new town to be thrown up. No one will force them exactly, but the intention is clear: to evacuate those still living on the island to the new site, where at present nothing but sugar cane stands, before it is too late.



--------------------------

Rising seas give island nation a stark choice: relocate or elevate

Climate change means the low-lying Marshall Islands must consider drastic measures, including building new artificial islands.

In the report, small-island developing states are identified as being at disproportionately higher risk of adverse consequences of global warming. Among them, four atoll nations: Kiribati, Tuvalu, the Maldives, and the Marshall Islands, are at greatest risk.

------------

This is what happens when climate change forces an entire country to seek higher ground

The central Pacific nation of Kiribati has a few claims to fame. Its flag-bearer at the past two summer Olympics won international attention and became a meme because of his memorable dancing. The country — known under British colonial rule as the Gilbert Islands (the name Kiribati, pronounced KI-ri-bahss, is a local transliteration of “Gilberts”) — has 33 islands spread over more than 1.3 million square miles, making it one of the world’s largest nations in terms of sea area, though one of the smallest in terms of land. But what it gets the most attention for these days is its impending doom: The nation may be one of the first in line to be wiped out by the effects of climate change.

Bye-bye: rising sea levels in Papua New Guinea

“We can see it with our own eyes, I’m afraid,” said Maria, 13. “The sea is eating the ground.” Maria lives on a remote atoll known as the Carteret Islands in Papua New Guinea and for over twenty years the islanders have been fighting a battle against the rising sea levels.

“The children will have to move later, for sure,” said school teacher Jarreanne Prabon. “I can see the food becoming scarcer, the clean water harder to come by. There’s not enough land to sustain us because the land is disappearing under the ocean.”

“Because of the sea level rise the water is going into the village, into our gardens and homes. We can’t grow food easily anymore because the salt water kills the soil,” said Jarreanne.

Around 80 kilometres away on Bougainville Island, an autonomous region in Papua New Guinea, the first people to leave the Carteret Islands are finding land, building homes and new livelihoods for the Carteret Islanders. They have been named the world’s first environmental refugees. “Eventually the sea will cover the island. Some people will stay until it’s completely eaten up by the sea,” says Maurice Kamin who left the Carteret Islands eight years ago with his family. “We do worry about something really bad happening to the island before everyone moves.”

[ysosrs]

yes, its going far too far. its just the weather

[wunksta]

yes, its going far too far. its just the weather

No, it's not just the weather. Increased temperatures and carbon dioxide lead to cascading effects which disrupts the world around us.

[Aehl]

My work is in climate adaptation, which isn't science in the same way mechanical engineering isn't science. You kind of have to understand science to do it, though.

Your work is in urban planning and you said so. You are not a climate scientist...you are also an SJW which reduces your credibility to zero.

Meanwhile, you're just citing conspiracy blogs and nutcases,

So we agree Tim Flannery has made numerous doomsday predictions, none of which have come to pass. Good, We are on the same page.

The seas arent rising, the world isnt coming to and end, dogs and cats wont be living together. Not one of the hundreds of doomsday claims have ever happened, not that they ever will.

Kiribati is in the Pacific ( thats in another part of the world for all of you who have never set foot outside 'Murica, like you, Endus), is on an volcanic atoll and Im not surprised. Islands rise and fall in the Pacific all the time.

If youd ever been there, youd know that.

When were you in Kiribati, Wunksta?

Id say never.

When have you ever left 'Murica?

Id say never.

Tuvalu, however, despite all the panic claims is growing not shrinking

In the four decades to 2014, Tuvalu's total land area grew by 73 hectares, or 2.9 per cent.

Wunksta: re your article above?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...te-change.html

In Kiribati, the three of the most densely populated islands, Betio, Bairiki and Nanikai, also grew by between 12.5 and 30 per cent.

Oops.

i live here and know far more than you do.

The PNG article?? Refers to VOLCANIC ATOLLS that rise and sink all the time so this isnt news at all

oh and here

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/a...f0bcb9e794db84

Even former Kiribati President Anote Tong, flogging the warming scare on the ABC, could not pretend the ABC claim was true the last time it was trotted out:

Fran Kelly: What is the situation now, how perilous is it?

Tong: ...I've always been very frank and honest to say I don't see the sea level rising...

and

From a new paper by Virginie K. E. Duvat, of the Institut du Littoral et de l'Environnement, University of la Rochelle, France:

A reanalysis of available data, which cover 30 Pacific and Indian Ocean atolls including 709 islands, reveals that no atoll lost land area and that 88.6% of islands were either stable or increased in area, while only 11.4% contracted...

and

Over the recent past, 29 atolls exhibited a stable land area, while one (South Tarawa, Kiribati) increased in size

and

Auckland University’s Associate Professor Paul Kench, a member of the team of scientists, says the results challenge the view that Pacific islands are sinking due to rising sea levels associated with climate change.

“Eighty per cent of the islands we’ve looked at have either remained about the same or, in fact, gotten larger,” he said.

“Some of those islands have gotten dramatically larger, by 20 or 30 per cent.

“We’ve now got evidence the physical foundations of these islands will still be there in 100 years.”

and

https://stream.org/nation-kiribati-growing-not-sinking/

Looks like the Washington Post was wrong, but here are words from people WHO ACTUALLY LIVE THERE..but sure what do they know, right Endus?

Most people I met weren’t making plans to relocate anytime soon.”

“Instead, I heard a lot of frustration that the rest of the world seems to take notice of the I-Kiribati only to tell them they’re doomed.”

“Several people I spoke with had already given interviews about climate change to foreign reporters. ‘In my case, you are the fifth person,’ remarked Teewata Aromata…. ‘People come and ask us the same questions. They see pictures of us and think we are drowning in the ocean.’ ”

Yet again, the panic mongers got it wrong.