Global warming may have already passed irreversible tipping point

[Endus]

So, rephrase the sentence to make it clearer, as there wasn't a requirement to use 2070s as a baseline for when the flooding will occur.

The study, which wasn't cited, called it long-term or multi-century sea level rise. That's the non-misleading way to describe it - CNN's way is misleading.

I've already explained why this is not true and I'm not repeating myself because you insist on being wrong.

CNN was speaking to a broader context, and you're ignoring half the sentence in question, which clearly states a context (time past 2070) that you're willfully ignoring.

Not to that level and not at 3°C warning - and the image has a caption saying 3°C.

So, for your statement:

You yourself acknowledged that they'd updated some of their data, correct?

Then stop pretending time isn't linear.

I don't know how you got from future flooding to Darwin the author of The Origin of Species and The Voyages of the Beagle; and you didn't answer that.

I did. Pre-emptively. You're denying the basic operation of the methodology of science itself. I picked an obvious example where one scientist's positions have mostly been overturned and improved upon by intervening research and data, to point out that nobody argues Darwin was lying, he was simply operating with the best information he had available to him at the time.

Because, again, time is linear. Which is apparently a concept you're having issue with.

I skipped decimals to be consistent, and due to larger uncertainties.

Oh no. You're condemning CNN's article for exactly that kind of completely-normal conduct.

I don't have a problem with it. I'm pointing out that you are clearly being a hypocrite about it.

When the difference is between the maps indicating 18-23 m (and about 1 m of flooding) and sea level rise of 6 m; the 0.4 m isn't that significant; especially as there are larger uncertainties in all values. There are standard scientific ways indicating uncertainty - they haven't used that.

Yes, they have.

You refusing to read the source material is not actually an argument.

Also, as I've stated before, you really need to read the details. Their elevation tools can't properly account for buildings or trees, and that can cause issues. They specifically state that you need to verify locally for specific details, rather than relying on their elevation figures. It simply is not useable in the way you're trying to use it, and they said so, but you're not aware of that because you don't actually check your sources properly.

The image says 3°C.

Actually, no, the image is a dynamic scaling thing with multiple temperature points you can set it to. And you've yet to make a case that it's actually wrong.

And that's why they should indicate the local SLR change; instead of hiding it behind a pixelated map with degree markings.

It isn't "hidden".

Also, admitting you don't actually know enough to properly contradict their conclusions is certainly an . . . interesting take.

The risk depictions they use include the tide; and still leave Durban city hall risk free at 3°C; and the image isn't even consistent with their risk for 4°C. And the other things aren't consistent with the images.

Again, time works linearly. That means updated data doesn't retroactively change things that were produced based on earlier data.

How is this a point you can't understand?

Also, they only factor in the mean high tides for the area. Not any of the other high-water contributors I mentioned. Again, you'd have known this if you bothered to actually read the details.

[Forogil]

CNN was speaking to a broader context, and you're ignoring half the sentence in question, which clearly states a context (time past 2070) that you're willfully ignoring.

What you are suggesting is that they are willfully including that to make their statement misleading.

For the rest they are using years, not relative references in 2060s and 2070s, and the natural comparison for us now is how far it is in the future - not how far it is relative to the 2070s. So, there are the two natural non-misleading statements they could have used.

You yourself acknowledged that they'd updated some of their data, correct?

The image is still there, but the data source claims to be updated. So the most positive explanation is that they based the image on their previous data, that they didn't cross-check with other sources - despite the warnings on their own site, and didn't remove their copy of the image when their own data no longer supported it.

Darwin was lying, he was simply operating with the best information he had available to him at the time.

They weren't operating with the best information available - as there were other sources of elevation data; and they knew that their new approach might have problems - but didn't check it.

And you still haven't shown that Darwin had any similar errors.

These other sources were available before theirs, and thus they could have used them - or checked it in more detail; since they knew that the data might be problematic.

So the following is you once more fighting strawmen and just being plain insulting

Because, again, time is linear. Which is apparently a concept you're having issue with.

Actually, no, the image is a dynamic scaling thing with multiple temperature points you can set it to.

Technically the sliding etc is done by having a set of fix images for different temperatures.

The image used for 3°C hasn't changed - so you are just trying to add a technicality while being incorrect.

The variant of that shown on CNN's only selects between present day and 3°C; the dynamic scaling variant is only found on their web-site.

It isn't "hidden".

So how many meters of sea-level rise do they project there?
And is the current elevation there?
As the information isn't "hidden" that should be easy to answer.

Again, time works linearly. That means updated data doesn't retroactively change things that were produced based on earlier data.

That's why honest researchers update their work when new information becomes available. That was difficult in Charles Darwin's time since you couldn't just edit the books in all libraries, but when the information is available from your own web-site you can do easily do that, especially for recent things.

Not any of the other high-water contributors I mentioned.

That as stated are inconsistent with the images, so the following applies to you:

Again, you'd have known this if you bothered to actually read

[Endus]

What you are suggesting is that they are willfully including that to make their statement misleading.

Wrong. No such suggestion.

Stop making shit up and pretending your imagination is the same as reality.

The image is still there, but the data source claims to be updated. So the most positive explanation is that they based the image on their previous data, that they didn't cross-check with other sources - despite the warnings on their own site, and didn't remove their copy of the image when their own data no longer supported it.

That's not how anything works, anywhere. You're being ridiculous. Particularly as their data does not contradict the image as you baselessly claim.

So how many meters of sea-level rise do they project there?
And is the current elevation there?
As the information isn't "hidden" that should be easy to answer.

You realize you can ask Climate Central for their datasets, right? I'm not the one who has them.

I'm not the one making a specific argument, here, just pointing out that you don't have the necessary information to back your criticisms.

That's why honest researchers update their work when new information becomes available. That was difficult in Charles Darwin's time since you couldn't just edit the books in all libraries, but when the information is available from your own web-site you can do easily do that, especially for recent things.

Again, time is linear. Art is not produced by magic fairies that live outside time and space.

That as stated are inconsistent with the images, so the following applies to you:

This is just incorrect.

[Forogil]

Wrong. No such suggestion.

So, they just "accidentally" made the statement misleading by mixing future dates and relative times in just the right way to not have to write that it occurred further in the future. I got you.

Failure to distinguish between potential effect far in the future, as this flooding multi-centuries away, and more immediate concerns is one of the many ways popular science are misleading - and when people later don't see those effect that feeds into a general distrust of science.

The image shows water 1 m above the street for 3°C for a place where their updated data show isn't at risk at 3°C.

You realize you can ask Climate Central for their datasets, right?

If they hadn't hidden the underlying data (they obviously have it non-exposed on the servers they use - i.e. hidden), that wouldn't be needed.

Oh, and you still haven't shown that Darwin had similar errors, you just used his name as a source of authority.

[Endus]

So, they just "accidentally" made the statement misleading by mixing future dates and relative times in just the right way to not have to write that it occurred further in the future. I got you.

No "accidentally".
Nothing was "misleading".
They didn't mix dates up. That was you.
They got relative times correct.
And they did mention further dates into the future.

Literally no segment of your statement was correct. Literally no part of it.

Failure to distinguish between potential effect far in the future, as this flooding multi-centuries away, and more immediate concerns is one of the many ways popular science are misleading - and when people later don't see those effect that feeds into a general distrust of science.

That "general distrust of science" is only held by the willfully ignorant, like climate change deniers.

I'm really not interested in the "conclusions" of irrational conspiracy nutcases.

The image shows water 1 m above the street for 3°C for a place where their updated data show isn't at risk at 3°C.

Again, linear time is a thing. And it's meant to show a flood scenario, not a high-tide scenario.

If they hadn't hidden the underlying data (they obviously have it non-exposed on the servers they use - i.e. hidden), that wouldn't be needed.

"You not immediately finding it" is not the same term as "hidden". They aren't hiding anything. You're lying about that.

Oh, and you still haven't shown that Darwin had similar errors,

you just used his name as a source of authority.

Are you under the impression that evolutionary theory has not advanced beyond Darwin's musing in On the Origin of Species?

If you are, then you don't know what you're talking about.
And if you aren't, you're perfectly aware of what I was pointing out, and you're engaging in bad faith, here.

[Elegiac]

Oh, and you still haven't shown that Darwin had similar errors,

It's one of those things considered general knowledge considering the refinement of evolutionary theory from Lamarck and Darwin onwards is literally taught in high school level biology.

Christ and Allah.

[Forogil]

To recap:

• Some scientist make a new study about how flooding will be in a multi-century perspective (in 200-2000 years; with 6.4 m mean sea level rise for 3°C increase) and they compute possible flooding at some places, and add some striking images showing this.
• CNN posts the images, but don't mention the multi-century perspective and mislead by saying that it will be decades after the 2070s. Someone was even misled in this very thread; showing that it is misleading.
• Looking at the flooding-map now show that some of the sites will not be flooded under the same circumstances (and coincidentally other sources gave far higher elevations at those places), but the images remain.

That's how pop-science twists genuine research; and this will later feed into the narrative that science isn't right.

Are you under the impression that evolutionary theory has not advanced beyond Darwin's musing in On the Origin of Species?

I'm fully aware that it has evolved, but I asked you to show that Darwin had similar errors, and since you want to be specific regarding evolutionary theory in The Origin of Species.

Still there are two significant differences:

• The later theories for evolution came later; whereas here the other information already existed and was available to these climate scientist. (Note that even if Mendel lived during Darwin's day, things were not as easily accessible back then.)
• The theory evolving doesn't mean that Darwin was wrong. The most obvious is that he didn't know about genes - so he couldn't provide a good explanation for how it worked in detail; but that doesn't show that there was an error in the evolutionary theory he presented in The Origin of Species, published 1859.

[Endus]

• CNN posts the images, but don't mention the multi-century perspective and mislead by saying that it will be decades after the 2070s. Someone was even misled in this very thread; showing that it is misleading.

This is a lie. You're lying.

That's how pop-science twists genuine research; and this will later feed into the narrative that science isn't right.

There is no such "narrative" outside of conspiracy nut blogs and the like.

I'm fully aware that it has evolved, but I asked you to show that Darwin had similar errors, and since you want to be specific regarding evolutionary theory in The Origin of Species.

This is basic high-school science stuff.

https://www.britannica.com/list/what...bout-evolution

Still there are two significant differences:

• The later theories for evolution came later; whereas here the other information already existed and was available to these climate scientist. (Note that even if Mendel lived during Darwin's day, things were not as easily accessible back then.)
• The theory evolving doesn't mean that Darwin was wrong. The most obvious is that he didn't know about genes - so he couldn't provide a good explanation for how it worked in detail; but that doesn't show that there was an error in the evolutionary theory he presented in The Origin of Species, published 1859.

So you're just going to openly be a hypocrite, then.

These two defenses both apply here, and you've dismissed them each time I brought them up.

You've somehow pulled out the point I was making while simultaneously thinking you were debunking me.

[s_bushido]

That's how pop-science twists genuine research; and this will later feed into the narrative that science isn't right.

Even assuming everything you said is correct (lol), I have no idea why you think it matters to the science that media and "pop science" outlets get shit wrong. And I definitely hope you're not blaming the scientists if people insist on being wrong because they don't bother to look at what those scientists have actually found/concluded.

[Forogil]

Even assuming everything you said is correct (lol), I have no idea why you think it matters to the science that media and "pop science" outlets get shit wrong.

Because those images linger, currently some say we didn't get global cooling as "pop science" predicted, and in 2100 others might remember these images and say that we didn't get this flooding.

That the actual science is more complicated doesn't matter in that perspective; the images are what people remember - and that's exactly why they were made.

And I definitely hope you're not blaming the scientists if people insist on being wrong because they don't bother to look at what those scientists have actually found/concluded.

The CNN reporting isn't their fault; but that they didn't double-check the flooding for the places they made images is on them - and that they don't provide provide the data for those places is also on them. But it uses neural networks, and it's cool with image-sliders.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.britannica.com/list/what...bout-evolution

Ah, you fell in the trap as predicted.

So you used Darwin as just an authority without having any examples. When called out you then found a link that you didn't read, once more.

I specifically asked for evidence of things that about evolution that were wrong in his 1859 book on The Origin of Species; and you found none.

The incorrect ones listed in the link are: Earth’s age, The mechanisms of variation among individuals.

Earth's age is primarily geology not evolution and I cannot see that Darwin got it that wrong in the book - in The Origin of Species he writes: "that in all probability a far longer period than 300 million years has elapsed"; (I'm not sure about the actual geological facts about the Weald - but that's clearly geology.) And, the Earth is more than 300 million years old. Yes, Earth is a lot older than that - but the way he writes it doesn't indicate that he saw it as the actual age.

The mechanisms of variation among individuals isn't in the Origin of species published 1859, as was clear from the link:

Although Darwin’s theory of natural selection was basically correct, in the late 1860s he proposed a theory that was very wrong.

Specifically that was in 1868 in his book "The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication".

Yes, that was a trap: the reason I added the year 1859 of publication was exactly because I expected that you didn't have any real facts, and would look up that specific link without reading it.

This is basic high-school science stuff.

So you say and still you don't seem to have mastered it.

[unfilteredJW]

I can’t believe he really typed “You fell for my trap.”

Some real clown make up energy here.

[Endus]

Because those images linger

In the same way that Darwin's "Origin of Species" lingers.

Proving you still don't understand that point.

currently some say we didn't get global cooling as "pop science" predicted, and in 2100 others might remember these images and say that we didn't get this flooding.

"Some" meaning "climate change denial conspiracy nutcases and propagandists" and nobody outside of those two groups. "Some" say that lizardpeople have been replacing politicians with lizards in skinsuits. They're crazy too. We don't listen to the crazies.

Ah, you fell in the trap as predicted.

So you used Darwin as just an authority without having any examples. When called out you then found a link that you didn't read, once more.

Nope. You really don't understand the simple point I made.

It had nothing to do with Darwin as any "authority". It had to do with the fact that linear time exists and things produced at one point in time are not retroactively, magically updated by future information, retroactively through time.

You've been arguing that this is the case, and Darwin was just what I thought was a super obvious example that it clearly doesn't.

[Elegiac]

Ah, you fell in the trap as predicted.

Watch out folks, we got an internet tough guy here.

Imagine being this pedantic.

[cubby]

I can’t believe he really typed “You fell for my trap.”

Some real clown make up energy here.

@Forogil didn't read something before bitching about it. Endus politely called him out on it, and then Forogil lost his mind and has been lying and misleading ever since. The past three pages are a tribute and testimony to Forogil's intellectual dishonesty. Good reading overall - Endus is taking him to task.

Your call out above is how far he's sunk during this relatively short period of time.

[Forogil]

In the same way that Darwin's "Origin of Species" lingers.

The Origin of Species lingers because it has stood the test of time, and you have failed to give examples of evolutionary errors in that book.
It was researched for years before being written and published.

That is a meticulous mind-set that neither you nor the researchers behind this paper show. Note that I don't expect such errors in the IPCC reports; because they understand that errors are problematic.

You claimed it was a high school biology knowledge, but when pressed about it you just looked up the first answer on-line and didn't read it; I've heard that some do the same in high school.

So, once more:

Darwin was not "dishonest" when he published Origin of Species.

The theory evolving doesn't mean that Darwin was wrong. The most obvious is that he didn't know about genes - so he couldn't provide a good explanation for how it worked in detail; but that doesn't show that there was an error in the evolutionary theory he presented in The Origin of Species, published 1859.

This is basic high-school science stuff.

https://www.britannica.com/list/what...bout-evolution

That presents one example claiming Darwin was wrong about geology (which is debatable at best), and another case where he had an incorrect evolutionary hypothesis (not theory) in another book published in 1868.

But I'll leave you with your fan-bois.

[Endus]

The Origin of Species lingers because it has stood the test of time, and you have failed to give examples of evolutionary errors in that book.
It was researched for years before being written and published.

The mechanisms of variation. Literally one of the examples in the Britannica article.

You're lying, because you just can't admit you made a mistake.

You claimed it was a high school biology knowledge, but when pressed about it you just looked up the first answer on-line and didn't read it; I've heard that some do the same in high school.

This isn't an academic debate. And you're so egregiously wrong on basic facts I only need to pull a tertiary source to demonstrate that.

Yes; that evolutionary theory has continued to advance and develop far past what Darwin originally developed is high-school-science level knowledge. You're the one contesting that, for some reason.

And the entire point was that science is always open to and evaluating new and improved data and reasoning as it comes to light. That's how science works. But here, you're trying to claim these particular researchers were "dishonest" because they did exactly that, and continued to update their work as new or better data was acquired or developed. The problem is you were acting like it was "dishonest" for them to have produced any work on any earlier data, or that said work should have been automagically updated retroactively the instant said data was produced, because you don't understand that time flows in only one direction. It's the same as claiming that Darwin was "wrong" because later evidence disproved some of his claims regarding variation mechanisms. That would be a ridiculous statement, as you acknowledge, but it's ridiculous for the same reasons that your argument is ridiculous, here, because that's the standard you chose to apply.

It was never about Darwin. It was about the fact that science is a process of continual iteration, and new iterations do not make prior iterations "dishonest" for having had less/different data to work from. That's what you've apparently got a problem with, and that's just anti-science nonsense.

Edit: We could also point to Darwin's complete lack of any concept of genetics or how inheritance works. And that it was gradual and constant, where modern concepts frame it as punctuated equilibrium. And so on. The broad strokes are there, and it's no skin off Darwin's nose for taking big swings and missing a few technical details, but if you stopped your evolutionary biology research with Darwin's works, you'd be sorely out of touch with the current understanding.

Obviously.

That's literally the point, here.

[Forogil]

The mechanisms of variation. Literally one of the examples in the Britannica article.

Literally the only example about evolution among those two, but as they indirectly state it wasn't in the Origin of Species as he published that idea later (in another book).

He also described that idea as a hypothesis, not as a theory. Because he understood his theory of evolution was incomplete; whereas you have failed to show errors in the Origin of Species. You know, high school stuff.

And the entire point was that science is always open to and evaluating new and improved data and reasoning as it comes to light

The "new and improved data" was already available to these researchers - just a few clicks away, but they were too caught up in making pretty pictures that they forgot to check the data. Darwin on the other hand worked meticulously.

[Endus]

Literally the only example about evolution among those two, but as they indirectly state it wasn't in the Origin of Species as he published that idea later (in another book).

He also described that idea as a hypothesis, not as a theory.

...

........

So now we can chalk up "doesn't understand what "theory" means in science" onto the list.

Jesus wept, dude.

The "new and improved data" was already available to these researchers - just a few clicks away, but they were too caught up in making pretty pictures that they forgot to check the data. Darwin on the other hand worked meticulously.

This is a lie. Repeating a lie over and over won't make it come true.

[Elegiac]

-snip-

Weren't you just leaving? Speaking of lies, lol.

[Forogil]

so now we can chalk up "doesn't understand what "theory" means in science" onto the list.

Of the things you don't know?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
Scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.
(So, theory of evolution now clearly fall in that category.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory

He clearly called it a hypothesis to indicate that one should collect evidence to test whether it is true, whereas he already presented evidence for the theory of evolution.

Oh, and it was still not in the Origin of Species, so you have still not presented any such errors. (There are surely some.)

Jesus wept, dude.

This is a lie.

What is a lie? Darwin working meticulously? That the "new and improved data" was already quickly available from other sites and their own data-set is different from the image? It seems their own visualization didn't have the updated data - but the idea in science isn't to make pretty pictures based on your data; but to verify the data you get.

Just calling something a lie doesn't make it one.