:up:

As I've explained several times, the comments on the climate change thread are off-topic and will be deleted if continued. You're free to take it up with anyone else you like, including the administrators, if you feel this is unfair. — Xtrix

I think you should check in with another mod before you proceed.

He's just deleting whatever he wants.

He is modding the feedback thread and modding a discussion he's taking part in. He's making ridiculous demands.

I'd like a read from the mods please.

Wait. Who deleted my last comment?

Xtrix is modding the feedback thread.

Where — Banno

"2.2 Sense and Nonsense
In the Tractatus Wittgenstein’s logical construction of a philosophical system has a purpose—to find the limits of world, thought, and language; in other words, to distinguish between sense and nonsense. “The book will … draw a limit to thinking, or rather—not to thinking, but to the expression of thoughts …. The limit can … only be drawn in language and what lies on the other side of the limit will be simply nonsense” (TLP Preface). The conditions for a proposition’s having sense have been explored and seen to rest on the possibility of representation or picturing. Names must have a bedeutung (reference/meaning), but they can only do so in the context of a proposition which is held together by logical form. It follows that only factual states of affairs which can be pictured can be represented by meaningful propositions. This means that what can be said are only propositions of natural science and leaves out of the realm of sense a daunting number of statements which are made and used in language.

"There are, first, the propositions of logic itself. These do not represent states of affairs, and the logical constants do not stand for objects. “My fundamental thought is that the logical constants do not represent. That the logic of the facts cannot be represented” (TLP 4.0312)."

-- SEP

Do you disagree with this interpretation?

Tractacus?

It isn't. Logic sets it out clearly. People are confused. Especially those who try to do philosophy without an understanding of logic. — Banno

Wittgenstein said logic is nonsense.

No, you said exactly what I quoted -- without context, without the quote function, without the mention function. It was irrelevant and off topic. — Xtrix

No, I said:

"A poster had suggested that climate change is simple and easily understood by referencing the laws of thermodynamics. That's not true. Factors as far flung as the present shape of the Earth's orbit are involved in predictions. The fact that the onset of another glacial period is due in the next few centuries is another issue compounding the complexity." — Tate

And also:

"And if reglaciation is going to happen in the next few centuries, why worry about warming or stop CO2 emissions?
— boethius

I would say because of the unknown, something unforeseen. Suppose some super disease appears because of climate change,and we don't survive it?"

And this was mentioned:

"If we change the earths atmosphere composition even more, we can exit an ice-age significantly (lose all year-round ice in the arctic) or even completely.
— boethius

It's possible. If we burn all the coal we can access it will become more likely. That would take around 200 years."

And then I said:

"Models show that at present levels of CO2, reglaciation will begin somewhere between 500 and 3000 years. If we burn all the available coal, it becomes a near miss. In other words, we don't know for sure, but it looks like we would miss this trigger, and it would be around 40,000 years before another trigger arrives.
— Tate"

And then I said,

"For decades now, scientists have known, just from looking at the geological record, that the reglaciation should start sometime in the next few centuries. That means glaciers come back down and cover Chicago. It means the UK is under a sheet of ice. This was disturbing news when it was first discovered, and we now know quite a bit more about how it works, what the trigger is, and so forth.

We don't presently know if increased CO2 will cause us to miss the trigger, or if reglaciation will begin anyway. There are aspects of the question that we don't even know how to model right now.

No, it's not simple."

Making this comment:

We are in an ice age guys. Get yourself up to speed.
— Tate

Without quoting anyone or referencing anything, in the climate change thread, is irrelevant. When asked about it, you stated the following: — Xtrix

No, I said this:

"A poster had suggested that climate change is simple and easily understood by referencing the laws of thermodynamics. That's not true. Factors as far flung as the present shape of the Earth's orbit are involved in predictions. The fact that the onset of another glacial period is due in the next few centuries is another issue compounding the complexity."

If an ice age is in the offing, the grenhouse effect could be just what the doctor ordered. — Agent Smith

It means change is ahead no matter what we do. Civilization emerged during a relatively serene period. It's first big test will be whatever happens in the next few centuries.

I didn't mod the thread. I'm just trying to clarify what being 'on topic' means. There's some flexibility there but that's the general thrust of it. — Baden

I'm pretty sure I understand. He has since ceased the aggressive posts. We can drop it for now, and let this be taken back up the next time he does it.

For example, I could start an OP asking if Napoleon's invasion of Russia was his greatest strategic blunder. If you answer with general information about Napoleon that doesn't address that specific question, you are off-topic. — Baden

Do you think that's a fair assessment of what I did?

Were you addressing the focus of the OP? Because it is an argumentative OP that is specifically focused on the question I mentioned. Did you attempt to answer the broad or specific questions in the OP? — Baden

The conversation evolved such that a poster had commented that climate change is easy science. I brought up the fact that we're in an ice age to explain some of the complexity. Honestly, if you deleted every comment that wasn't directly addressing whether it's too late, most of the thread would be gone, including many of Xtrix's comments.

C'mon. Be reasonable.

Like, how is Wikipedia wrong on this point, — boethius

The amount of anthropogenic greenhouse gases emitted into Earth's oceans and atmosphere is predicted to prevent the next glacial period for the next 500,000 years, — Ice age-Wikipedia

Models show that at present levels of CO2, reglaciation will begin somewhere between 500 and 3000 years. If we burn all the available coal, it becomes a near miss. In other words, we don't know for sure, but it looks like we would miss this trigger, and it would be around 40,000 years before another trigger arrives.

I'll have to look at what research they based that comment on.

The topic question concerns whether it is too late to stop climate change — Baden

I was talking about climate change. The OP is: Climate Change (General Discussion)

?

This is part of the discussion:


"For decades now, scientists have known, just from looking at the geological record, that the reglaciation should start sometime in the next few centuries. That means glaciers come back down and cover Chicago. It means the UK is under a sheet of ice. This was disturbing news when it was first discovered, and we now know quite a bit more about how it works, what the trigger is, and so forth.

We don't presently know if increased CO2 will cause us to miss the trigger, or if reglaciation will begin anyway. There are aspects of the question that we don't even know how to model right now.

No, it's not simple."

Apologies, can't seem to find one. However, in my defense, since climatologists claim global warming is a fact, they should be able to confirm/counter my claim; after all science is all about making accurate quantifiable predictions.
nowReplyOptions — Agent Smith

There is a delay from CO2 emission to associated temperature increase. Maybe that's what you were thinking about?

The amount of anthropogenic greenhouse gases emitted into Earth's oceans and atmosphere is predicted to prevent the next glacial period for the next 500,000 years, — Ice age-Wikipedia

Wow. This is wrong. Wikipedia lets us down

If you want to discuss ice ages, and how climate change may impact the next ice age, fine -- that's a different topic. — Xtrix

I think it's very much on topic.

where are the climatologists predicting reglaciation starting something in the next few centuries? — boethius

As I said, we've known about this since the 1980s. It just doesn't come up much because it's centuries away.

And if reglaciation is going to happen in the next few centuries, why worry about warming or stop CO2 emissions? — boethius

I would say because of the unknown, something unforeseen. Suppose some super disease appears because of climate change,and we don't survive it?

If down the road we want to stop reglaciation, let tomorrow's scientists figure out how to do that safely.

Thanks for being so friendly, and not at all unnecessarily aggressive.

So how does that square with the earth's biosphere is "self correcting"? — boethius

I don't even know what that means.

how are these acceptable risks to take? — boethius

It would probably be prudent to put the brakes on CO2 emissions, like completely.

If we change the earths atmosphere composition even more, we can exit an ice-age significantly (lose all year-round ice in the arctic) or even completely. — boethius

It's possible. If we burn all the coal we can access it will become more likely. That would take around 200 years.

You present yourself as "knowledgeable" about ice-ages ... but have not even bothered to read the second paragraph of the wikipedia entry "ice age": — boethius

We're in an interglacial period of a large scale ice age. Specifically, we're at the end of an interglacial awaiting reglaciation.

The problem is that it's as irrelevant as stating any random fact about the climate. — Xtrix

For decades now, scientists have known, just from looking at the geological record, that the reglaciation should start sometime in the next few centuries. That means glaciers come back down and cover Chicago. It means the UK is under a sheet of ice. This was disturbing news when it was first discovered, and we now know quite a bit more about how it works, what the trigger is, and so forth.

We don't presently know if increased CO2 will cause us to miss the trigger, or if reglaciation will begin anyway. There are aspects of the question that we don't even know how to model right now.

No, it's not simple. — Tate

Climate change is easy to understand — boethius

For decades now, scientists have known, just from looking at the geological record, that the reglaciation should start sometime in the next few centuries. That means glaciers come back down and cover Chicago. It means the UK is under a sheet of ice. This was disturbing news when it was first discovered, and we now know quite a bit more about how it works, what the trigger is, and so forth.

We don't presently know if increased CO2 will cause us to miss the trigger, or if reglaciation will begin anyway. There are aspects of the question that we don't even know how to model right now.

No, it's not simple.

Stating "we're in an ice age" in this context is still odd to me, and I fail to see the relevance. — Xtrix

It's a fact about the climate. We're talking about the climate. Problem?

CO2 levels have increased, not denying that. However, the spike in CO2 levels has been slower and less than expected for the rate and quantity of CO2 emissions. — Agent Smith

Didn't know that. Reference?

What is the relevance of this remark? — Xtrix

No need to get testy. A poster had suggested that climate change is simple and easily understood by referencing the laws of thermodynamics. That's not true. Factors as far flung as the present shape of the Earth's orbit are involved in predictions. The fact that the onset of another glacial period is due in the next few centuries is another issue compounding the complexity.

Is this news to you?

Hypothesis: Negative feedback loops aka the balance of nature. — Agent Smith

The climate changes drastically from time to time. Changes in CO2 levels have been the main culprit in numerous climate change events in the past.

Which one?

You're attributing someone else's words to me.

as in we are changing the climate from ice-age to not-ice age, — boethius

It's not clear whether increased CO2 will take us out of the present ice age or not.

How do you know we've been in an ice-age as you say? — boethius

That's the standard scientific perspective at this time.

If their credible on the ice-age scientific facts you base your argument on ... why are they not credible on their opinions on climate change? — boethius

Global warming is real. Nobody said otherwise.

Plan your work
work your plan.

Definitely. Just remember that as long as you work in line with inner imperatives, mountains will seem like molehills in the rear view mirror. If you aren't, small things will stump you. So pick up the threads of that inner directive and work with it, not against it.

You could think of it as blooming according to your DNA. You don't entirely control that. Where there's a control problem, that will show up as obsession with goals and "crushing" them as we say. Notice the violent imagery.

I just sort of quietly told my dog to "stop" and she stopped and walked away. Isn't it funny how we never think much about how that kind of communication works, but propositional language is forever confusing? Why is that?

Maps of the territory (i.e. "intellect") cannot encompass the territory (i.e. "everything"), right? — 180 Proof

I guess mapping could be a kind of explanation.

... I can't think of any greater, more endemic, abuse of intelligence than using intelligence to deny its own limits — 180 Proof

Your intellect is the only part of you that can ponder whether it has limits. It's the only part that can reason out why there might be limits.

And the intellect says it might be in the same category as Everything in being unexplainable. It's not sure.

Words are used for communicating what is the case to someone that lacks the knowledge of what is the case — Harry Hindu

Exactly.