2023 smashes record for world’s hottest year by huge margin

[o_mlly]

Yes really. Your comment about freezing to death, and other recent comments, are examples of the fallacy of appeal to consequences.

You should read what you cite before posting: "Therefore, an argument based on appeal to consequences is valid in long-term decision making (which discusses possibilities that do not exist yet in the present) "

You should just take comfort in the fact that, although climate change is real, and caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels, humanity has been largely unable to meaningfully do anything about the situation. So those undesirable consequences won't come to pass.

It appears, like Goebbels. you believe if you repeat the same lie often enough others will think it true. So, yes ... try again.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So, yes ... try again.

I would point in particular to sections 1.3.3 and 1.3.4.

Lines of Evidence: Identifying Natural and Human Drivers​

Here are the very first two paragraphs of the section I linked to.

The climate is a globally interconnected system driven by solar energy. Scientists in the 19th century established the main physical principles governing Earth’s temperature. By 1822, the principle of radiative equilibrium (the balance between absorbed solar radiation and the energy Earth re-radiates into space) had been articulated, and the atmosphere’s role in retaining heat had been likened to a greenhouse (Fourier, 1822). The primary explanations for natural climate change – greenhouse gases, orbital factors, solar irradiance, continental position, volcanic outgassing, silicate rock weathering, and the formation of coal and carbonate rock – were all identified by the late 19th century (Fleming, 1998; Weart, 2008).

The natural and anthropogenic factors responsible for climate change are known today as radiative ‘drivers’ or ‘forcers’. The net change in the energy budget at the top of the atmosphere, resulting from a change in one or more such drivers, is termed ‘radiative forcing’ (RF; Glossary) and measured in watts per square metre (W m–2). The total radiative forcing over a given time interval (often since 1750) represents the sum of positive drivers (inducing warming) and negative ones (inducing cooling). Past IPCC reports have assessed scientific knowledge of these drivers, quantified their range for the period since 1750, and presented the current understanding of how they interact in the climate system. Like all previous IPCC reports, AR5 assessed that total radiative forcing has been positive at least since 1850–1900, leading to an uptake of energy by the climate system, and that the largest single contribution to total radiative forcing is the rising atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1750 (Chapter 7, and Cross-Chapter Box 1.2; IPCC, 2013a).

For more information, I refer you to the parenthetical citations.

 

[o_mlly]

"... the largest single contribution to total radiative forcing is the rising atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1750."

Even if true, the statement above still does not evidence the claim "that burning fossil fuels is the primary cause of global warming."

 

[Hans Blaster]

"... the largest single contribution to total radiative forcing is the rising atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1750."

Even if true, the statement above still does not evidence the claim "that burning fossil fuels is the primary cause of global warming."

The report details how those conclusions about radiative forcing are reached, then...

What other source of CO2 could cause that other than human emissions?

We know how much CO2 increased and how much fossil fuels were burned.

 

[essentialsaltes]

"... the largest single contribution to total radiative forcing is the rising atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1750."

Even if true, the statement above still does not evidence the claim "that burning fossil fuels is the primary cause of global warming."

In the 5th IPCC, you can see that fossil fuels is the #1 (and majority) contributor to anthropogenic GHG. Greater than agricultural, forestry and land use (AFOLU) and other industrial processes combined.

View attachment 342631

 

[o_mlly]

The report details how those conclusions about radiative forcing are reached, then...

Yes ...

What other source of CO2 could cause that other than human emissions?

Not for me to say but for those who claim "that burning fossil fuels is the primary cause of global warming."

We know how much CO2 increased and how much fossil fuels were burned.

We estimate, not "know' and over what time period can we reliably estimate -- the last 150 years? What is the earth's climate cycle? Was not the last glacial period more than 150 years ago? What level of volcanic activity or raging fires engulfed the earth in its history? I suspect we know far less than what is needed to know before claiming as science that "burning fossil fuels is the primary cause of global warming."

 

[o_mlly]

essentialsaltes said:
In the 5th IPCC, you can see that fossil fuels is the #1 (and majority) contributor to anthropogenic GHG. Greater than agricultural, forestry and land use (AFOLU) and other industrial processes combined.

View attachment 342631

Yes. That's the claim -- as far as man's activity in contributing to GHG. Where's the evidence to support "burning fossil fuels is the primary cause of global warming."

 

[essentialsaltes]

Where's the evidence to support "burning fossil fuels is the primary cause of global warming."

Primary means #1.

 

[o_mlly]

Primary means #1.

Where's the evidence to support "burning fossil fuels is the number 1 cause of global warming."

 

[essentialsaltes]

Where's the evidence to support "burning fossil fuels is the number 1 cause of global warming."

"... the largest single contribution to total radiative forcing is the rising atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1750."

You appear to accept that CO2 is a "planet-warming gas".
So that and the rest of the information you've seen recently closes the loop.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes ...

Not for me to say but for those who claim "that burning fossil fuels is the primary cause of global warming."

And it is well documented. The increase in atmospheric CO2 is *less* than the amount released by fossil fuel consumption. The major driver

We estimate, not "know' and over what time period can we reliably estimate -- the last 150 years?

Yeah we do. We have data and models and proxy measurements.

What is the earth's climate cycle?

Which one? There are many from the ENSO to Milankovitch cycles and others in between.

Was not the last glacial period more than 150 years ago?

We're still in a "glacial period", currently a low glaciation state.

What level of volcanic activity or raging fires engulfed the earth in its history?

Raging fires haven't engulfed the Earth in this period. Volcanoes have a very tiny impact as their emissions are small compared to humans.

I suspect we know far less than what is needed to know before claiming as science that "burning fossil fuels is the primary cause of global warming."

And you would be wrong.

 

[o_mlly]

And it is well documented. The increase in atmospheric CO2 is *less* than the amount released by fossil fuel consumption. The major driver

Yeah we do. We have data and models and proxy measurements.

Which one? There are many from the ENSO to Milankovitch cycles and others in between.

We're still in a "glacial period", currently a low glaciation state.

Raging fires haven't engulfed the Earth in this period. Volcanoes have a very tiny impact as their emissions are small compared to humans.

And you would be wrong.

So you say w/o evidence. Just more scientific hubris at work.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Yes really. Your comment about freezing to death, and other recent comments, are examples of the fallacy of appeal to consequences.

You should just take comfort in the fact that, although climate change is real, and caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels, humanity has been largely unable to meaningfully do anything about the situation. So those undesirable consequences (the ones you're worried about, anyway) won't come to pass.

The part I bolded is simply not true. In fact, a major problem today is that so many people actually believe that. I've provided plenty of links addressing that issue. But you can only lead a horse to water.

I figured out a couple of years ago why I, specifically, am an outlier on this issue: I got rid of TV back in 1997. I've not been corrupted by the group think.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

This is like saying that Thomas Sweatt is innocent of his arsons because there was a great fire in Rome in 64 AD, and plastic milk jugs didn't exist back then.

The evidence of Sweatt's crimes leads to a conclusion as to the cause.
The evidence of climate change leads to a conclusion as to the cause.

The evidence of different situations leads to different causes.

We know his crimes caused the fires. That is an established fact. We don't know that man caused any climate change of any significance. There are attempts being made to establish that as a fact, but so far, no luck. It's a theory.

And I'm still trying to figure out why people think that any current climage change is a bad thing. I don't get it. I'd love to see Siberia turned into wine country and The Sahara become the citruis capitol of the world. "Change my mind."

 

[Reasonably Sane]

I know it's a fairly long video, but I really do wish some of those on both sides of this issue would watch the video I linked in this post above: 2023 smashes record for world’s hottest year by huge margin

It covers the science, the politics and the cultural issues surrounding this whole issue. And from a "certified" expert in the field. It is very informative.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Yes really. Your comment about freezing to death, and other recent comments, are examples of the fallacy of appeal to consequences.

Isn't that what "just stop oil" is guilty of? I think you are projecting.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Isn't that what "just stop oil" is guilty of?

I don't believe throwing soup at a painting is even an informal fallacy.

Nevertheless, no.

An appeal to consequence is rejecting the truth value of a claim because you don't like the consequences. (or accepting a claim because you like the consequences, like loving the idea of growing citrus in the Sahara.)

Climate activists accept the truth value of a claim despite not liking the consequences. [Hopefully, they accept it because they have some understanding of the evidence that has led to the consensus of scientific experts that the claim is true. But even if they believe it because Abraham Lincoln told them to in a drug-induced vision, they are not making an appeal to consequence.]

 

[Reasonably Sane]

An important thing to remember about CO2: Mars and Venus have roughly the same percentage of CO2 in their atmosphere, yet one is very, very hot and the other is very cold. And it's not just the sun. The key component is atmospheric pressure. That is why it's hotter in Death valley than at the top of Mt Everest. And so far nobody's worried about us increasing our atmospheric pressure.

I consider CO2 to be a GOOD gas and I think we could use a much higher percentage of it in our atmosphere. The World Is Getting Greener Thanks to Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels
Note: I included the article above as my "proof" because it also demonstrates the delusion of the anti-civilization mob. They even have the audacity to call CO2 a pollutant. But basically, the article tries to turn good news into doom and gloom. I guess they know what pays.

Meanwhile, others are now, with a straight face, telling us we're planting too many trees. My how times change.https://www.wired.com/story/stop-planting-trees-thomas-crowther/

And in the 70's we thought we were on the cusp of a new ice age. Global cooling - Wikipedia

Hopefully, eventually more people will figure out that we are not always at the edge of some climate catastrophe and they can live their lives in peace and joy. This should be especially easy for professing Christians. God is in control. It's how I live my life. Now 'scuse me while I put another couple of logs in the wood burning stove in my shop.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

I don't believe throwing soup at a painting is even an informal fallacy.

Nevertheless, no.

An appeal to consequence is rejecting the truth value of a claim because you don't like the consequences. (or accepting a claim because you like the consequences, like loving the idea of growing citrus in the Sahara.)

Climate activists accept the truth value of a claim despite not liking the consequences. [Hopefully, they accept it because they have some understanding of the evidence that has led to the consensus of scientific experts that the claim is true. But even if they believe it because Abraham Lincoln told them to in a drug-induced vision, they are not making an appeal to consequence.]

Are they not trying to appeal to consequences? Frankly, isn't the whole "AGW" argument an appeal to consequences? In fact, don't both sides of any discussion of this type appeal to consequences? Isn't that what risk assessment is all about? One considers three aspects

1. The likelihood of the bad thing happening
2. The impact of the bad thing happening
3. The cost of mitigation

All three are an appeal to consequences.
Number three is lost on too many people, but it explains why we don't spend any money hardening our homes from a meteor landing on it. The financial consequences of actually doing that would destroy any family or government budget. So we just hope it doesn't happen. And good news! It probably won't.

Same with AGW. All predictions fall flat, and models are proven wildly inaccurate. And number three actually matters. So, when we actually know more maybe we can "do something" that actually matters, assuming we even need to. At the turn of the 20th century, NYC was fretting about what they were going to do with all the horse doo doo in the streets. Oddly, it suddenly ceased to be a problem.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Are they not trying to appeal to consequences?

Not in the manner of a fallacy.

As noted earlier in the thread, if you have good reasons (not fallacious reasons) to believe something, then consequences are what one validly uses to set future plans.