What's new
  • This thread contains opinions and information that likely IS NOT ACCURATE. Do your own research on such an important topic on a site other than JazzFanz.com, please.

Joe Rogan's Podcast


Al-O-Meter

Well-Known Member
Has Al-O left the building? How’d he get out from the corner he’d backed himself into?
What corner is it you think I was in? You made a comment about 70 years being too little time. I countered with a quip that didn’t land due to it requiring knowledge of a particular academic work I incorrectly assumed you knew about. That isn’t me backing myself into a corner.

Some of the scenarios are pretty bleak. A 4-degree C scenario by 2100 is on-the-table, and that would be massively catastrophic.
Ah yes, that's the stuff.
road-warrior-1981-hockey-mask-boss-ultimatum-reviewed.jpg
 


NAOS

Well-Known Member
What corner is it you think I was in? You made a comment about 70 years being too little time. I countered with a quip that didn’t land due to it requiring knowledge of a particular academic work I incorrectly assumed you knew about. That isn’t me backing myself into a corner.


Ah yes, that's the stuff.
road-warrior-1981-hockey-mask-boss-ultimatum-reviewed.jpg
Your record of not answering my questions is very easy to find. It’s in this very thread, so you won’t have to go far.

You can start by synopsizing for us what your main takeaways from that article (that you cited) were. As I said, the stage is all yours.
 

LogGrad98

Well-Known Member
Contributor
2020-21 Award Winner
I recommend Ellis’ book Anthropocene: a very short introduction. It’s excellent, and would definitely iron out some of your clunky distinctions. Humans have indeed massively accelerated in their impact of the Earth System in the last 70 years—and, yes, humans have been driving ecosystemic changes for much longer than that. But leaving Holocene conditions is a significant moment in that story. And there are mannnnnnny reasons to suspect nonlinear changes in the Earth system now that we have.


Let me put it to you this way (I think I can say this frankly, since you and I have a rapport): I can tell by the way that you’re framing your rationale that you would benefit by looking further into the science. From my seat, your doubts sound precisely like a psychological defense strategy (it isn’t an uncommon one, fwiw).


Human-induced climate change doesn’t need to become the “nuclear winter”.... whatever that means..... but it could, in fact, be as bad as a nuclear winter (something that can cause massive crop shortages for 2-5 years and cause serious ****ing problems). There’s no doubting the serious probabilities of that when you study the science.
I will look into your sources, thanks for that. I always enjoy reading more on these topics.

I think you are reading too much into my hyperbolic statements. Probably my fault. I'm not saying we shouldn't do something about our impact on the planet. We absolutely should. Reducing suffering is a worthy goal. Also pretty much all the issues you've brought up, including all effects of climate change, speaking of the acceleration over the last 70 years, trend almost exactly with hugely accelerating human population. This drives increases in energy demand and consumption, as well as increased deforestation and urbanization, among many many other problems. The problem is much bigger than just reducing use of fossil fuels, and we really need to start thinking about other solutions because the biggest polluters refuse to play along, which unfortunately includes America.

Don't get my wrong, we need to fix this stuff somehow. I just don't buy into the apocalyptic doomsday scenarios. And from other articles I've read, neither do many of the climate scientists. I think panic-mongering is counterproductive to really getting stuff done.
 

One Brow

Well-Known Member
Don't get my wrong, we need to fix this stuff somehow. I just don't buy into the apocalyptic doomsday scenarios. And from other articles I've read, neither do many of the climate scientists. I think panic-mongering is counterproductive to really getting stuff done.
We are reducing our capacity to support our civilization. So much depends on what we do, and how quickly we do it, that I don't think anyone can make realistic projections. However, our survival as a civilization and a culture is in jeopardy, if perhaps not as a species.
 

NAOS

Well-Known Member
I will look into your sources, thanks for that. I always enjoy reading more on these topics.

I think you are reading too much into my hyperbolic statements. Probably my fault. I'm not saying we shouldn't do something about our impact on the planet. We absolutely should. Reducing suffering is a worthy goal. Also pretty much all the issues you've brought up, including all effects of climate change, speaking of the acceleration over the last 70 years, trend almost exactly with hugely accelerating human population. This drives increases in energy demand and consumption, as well as increased deforestation and urbanization, among many many other problems. The problem is much bigger than just reducing use of fossil fuels, and we really need to start thinking about other solutions because the biggest polluters refuse to play along, which unfortunately includes America.

Don't get my wrong, we need to fix this stuff somehow. I just don't buy into the apocalyptic doomsday scenarios. And from other articles I've read, neither do many of the climate scientists. I think panic-mongering is counterproductive to really getting stuff done.
FWIW, the IPCC has a structure that is inherently conservative by nature. One of the serious criticisms of it, in fact.
 

Al-O-Meter

Well-Known Member
You can start by synopsizing for us what your main takeaways from that article (that you cited) were.
The paper makes the case that 17 years’ worth of weather data is the lower bound dataset size for extracting climate signal from inherently noisy weather data. Even today it is still seen as the seminal word on the climate versus weather which is why is it so well known. I’m not ducking you. I ignored your request because it is insulting. If you want to talk ideas then I'm all for it, but if you want to issue tasks to determine if I know how to read then I'm not really into it.
 
Last edited:

NAOS

Well-Known Member
The paper makes the case that 17 years’ worth of weather data is the lower bound dataset size for extracting climate signal from inherently noisy weather data. Even today it is still seen as the seminal word on the climate versus weather which is why is it so well known. I’m not ducking you. I ignored your request because it is insulting. If you want to talk ideas that I'm all for it, but if you want to issue tasks to determine if I know how to read then I'm not really into it.
It’s still not clear why you think this line of argument applies to what we were taking about when you cited it. There are some unflattering assumptions I can make, so I’m giving you the opportunity to clarify..... which you still need to do, I’m afraid.
 

NAOS

Well-Known Member
Playing the “insult” card is one of the tiredest tropes of the political right.
 

Top