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."

The topic is not just the general subject but the focus of the OP. The topic question concerns whether it is too late to stop climate change. If you're not focusing on that argument but talking about climate in a more general way, you are off-topic.

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)

?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

I'm just trying to clarify what being 'on topic' means — Baden

For informational purposes.

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.

I don't know what you're talking about. — Tate

Okay, then I'll gladly explain.

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:

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? — Tate

You then go on to talk about how we don't know whether CO2 levels will affect whether nor not we hit another ice age.

So, to recap:

(1) You made a statement out of the blue about being in an ice age, without explanation.
(2) Declared that it's relevant simply because it's a "fact about the climate."
(3) Speculated about future ice ages.

You're disrupting the thread with irrelevancies.

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."

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."

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 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 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?"

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." — Tate

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

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

No, you said the following:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/722391

Very easy to look it up.

Wait. Who deleted my last comment?

Xtrix is modding the feedback thread.

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.

He's just deleting whatever he wants.

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.

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.

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

Appreciate the feedback.

:up:

He's continuing to delete perfectly normal posts of mine. What the heck?

PSA – fyi folks, the last Ice Age ended about 10,000 years ago and the Earth is currently 1/10th of the way through an estimated 100,000 year interglacial cycle that scientists refer to as the Holocene. A few centuries ago the northern hempisphere, specifically pre-industrial Europe had experienced what is now referred to as a "Little Ice Age" when average global temperatures had dropped; this does not mean, however, we are "currently in an Ice Age". In the last 150 years the Earth (mostly the northern hemisphere, due to accelerating, industrial greenhouse gas emissions) has warmed 1°C and continues to rise due to human activity. The average global temperature difference between Ice Ages and interglacials is 6°C and currently we are trending towards 4-6°C above this differential average. It is simply factually incorrect to claim "the Earth is currently in an Ice Age" when, in fact, glaciers and polar sea ice and permafrost everywhere are melting with corresponding methane releases and sea-level rise as well as increasing frequency and intensity of heavy storms / precipitation, flooding, wildfires and droughts.

:point: Concept of the Day: radiative forcing :fire:

https://climate.nasa.gov/ :victory: :mask:

That’s the good thing about science: It’s true whether or not you believe in it. That’s why it works. — Niel deGrasse Tyson

, the last Ice Age ended about 10,000 years — 180 Proof

That was the last glacial period of a large scale ice age, during which the climate swings between long glacial periods and short interglacials. There have been several of these larger scale ice ages in Earth's history.

the Earth is currently 1/10th of the way through an estimated 100,000 year interglacial cycle that scientists refer to as the Holocene — 180 Proof

That's one view. There are others. The more common view is that we should head back into glaciation some time in the next 10,000 years. We're near a trigger point now.

A few centuries ago the northern hempisphere, specifically pre-industrial Europe had experienced what is now referred to as a "Little Ice Age" when average global temperatures had dropped; this does not mean, however, we are "currently in an Ice Age". — 180 Proof

Interestingly, that cold spell was identified by comparing grape crop records from French monasteries to weather reports from the British Admiralty.

It is simply factually incorrect to claim "the Earth is currently in an Ice Age" — 180 Proof

It's proper usage. Note to the point: whether it's true or false, is it relevant to global warming? If for no other reason than that it provides fodder to deniers, I'd say yes.

@Tate fyi, I was just thrown off by 180proof's substantive climate post above and as a result thought we were still in the climate change thread and accidentally deleted your comment immediately above it, thinking it was feedback on moderating in the regular climate change thread. I've asked if it could be put back but this can take some time (if possible).