Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: Lumifer 28 March 2017 05:56:12PM 1 point [-]

why was the claim that cars are a net positive not nearly as thoroughly scrutinized as my counterargument?

Because there is a significant prior to overcome. Whenever people get sufficiently wealthy, they start buying cars. Happened in the West, happened in China, Russia, India, etc. etc. Everywhere. And powers-that-be are fine with that. So to assert that cars are a net negative you need to assert that everyone is wrong.

Comment author: dglukhov 28 March 2017 06:10:09PM *  0 points [-]

Just out of curiosity, what is your stance on the impact of cars on climate change? And cars are too narrow, then what is your stance on fossil fuel consumptions and its impact on climate change?

You linked to parts of the debate I've never been exposed to, so I'm curious if there's more to know.

Comment author: Lumifer 28 March 2017 05:08:52PM *  1 point [-]

The general test is whether the claim is precise enough to be falsifiable -- is there an outcome (or a set of data, etc) which will unambiguously prove that claim to be wrong, with no wiggle room to back out?

And, by the way, IPCC reports are, of course, full of quantified claims like the one I mentioned. There might be concerns with data quality, model errors, overconfidence in the results, etc. etc, but the claims are well-quantified.

Comment author: dglukhov 28 March 2017 05:46:56PM *  0 points [-]

That is fair, so why was the claim that cars are a net positive not nearly as thoroughly scrutinized as my counterargument? I can't help but notice some favoritism here...

Was such an analysis done? Recently? Is this such common knowledge that nobody bothered to refute it?

Edit: my imagination only stretches so far as to see climate change being the only heavy counterargument to the virtue of cars. Anything else seems relatively minor, i.e deaths from motor accidents, etc.

Comment author: Lumifer 28 March 2017 04:38:17PM *  1 point [-]

Are you asking me to write out the interpretation of the evidence I see as a mathematical model

Not evidence. I want you to make a precise claim.

For example, "because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and because there's a lot more of it around than there used to be, that CO2 cascades into a warming event" is a not-quantified claim. It's not precise enough to be falsifiable (which is how a lot of people like it, but that's a tangent).

A quantified equivalent would be something along the lines of "We expect the increase in atmospheric CO2 from 300 to 400 ppmv to lead to the increase of the average global temperature by X degrees spread over the period of Z years so that we forecast the average temperature in the year YYYY as measured by a particular method M to be T with the standard error of E".

Note that this is all claim, no evidence (and not a model, either).

Comment author: dglukhov 28 March 2017 04:48:14PM 0 points [-]

Well, at this point I'd concede its not easy to make a claim with standards fit for such an example.

I'll see what I can do.

Comment author: Lumifer 28 March 2017 03:52:19PM *  1 point [-]

What other inferential steps does a person need to be shown to tell them that because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and because there's a lot more of it around than there used to be, that CO2 cascades into a warming event?

Look up a disagreement between two chaps, Svante Arrhenius and Knut Ångström :-)

Here is the argument against your position (there is a counter-argument to it, too):

water vapor, which is far more abundant in the air than carbon dioxide, also intercepts infrared radiation. In the infrared spectrum, the main bands where each gas blocked radiation overlapped one another. How could adding CO2 affect radiation in bands of the spectrum that H2O (not to mention CO2 itself) already made opaque?

.

The recent weather anomalies hitting earth imply the future is here.

Like the remarkable hurricane drought in the North America? Or are you going to actually argue that weather is climate?

so why not debate at the metalevel of the infrastructure

Sure, but it's a different debate.

Comment author: dglukhov 28 March 2017 04:42:20PM 0 points [-]

there is a counter-argument to it, too

What was his counter-argument? I can't read German.

Like the remarkable hurricane drought in the North America? Or are you going to actually argue that weather is climate?

Well clearly we need to establish a time range. Most sources for weather and temperature records I've seen span a couple of centuries. Is that not a range large enough to talk about climate instead of weather?

Sure, but it's a different debate.

Its a related debate, especially relevant if conclusions in the debate a metalevel lower are unenlightened.

Comment author: Lumifer 28 March 2017 04:13:31PM 1 point [-]

You wouldn't have claims to make before seeing the numbers in the first place.

LOL. Are you quite sure this is how humans work? :-)

You communicate this claim to another, they ask you why, you show them the numbers.

I want you to quantify the claim, not the evidence for the claim.

Comment author: dglukhov 28 March 2017 04:20:55PM 0 points [-]

LOL. Are you quite sure this is how humans work? :-)

They don't, that's something you train to do.

I want you to quantify the claim, not the evidence for the claim.

Why? Are you asking me to write out the interpretation of the evidence I see as a mathematical model instead of a sentence in English?

Comment author: Lumifer 28 March 2017 03:58:24PM *  1 point [-]

Putting data on the table to back up claims.

Turns out you don't know. The word means expressing your claims in numbers and, by itself, does not imply support by data.

Usually "quantifying" is tightly coupled to being precise about your claims.

Comment author: dglukhov 28 March 2017 04:05:53PM 0 points [-]

Turns out you don't know. The word means expressing your claims in numbers and, by itself, does not imply support by data.

Usually "quantifying" is tightly coupled to being precise about your claims.

I'm confused. You wouldn't have claims to make before seeing the numbers in the first place. You communicate this claim to another, they ask you why, you show them the numbers. That's the typical process of events I'm used to, how is it wrong?

Comment author: Lumifer 28 March 2017 03:22:17PM 1 point [-]

According to what sources

Will Wikipedia suffice?

What more could you possibly need?

You did use the word "quantify", did you not? Do you know what it means?

Comment author: dglukhov 28 March 2017 03:42:25PM *  0 points [-]

You did use the word "quantify", did you not? Do you know what it means?

Putting data on the table to back up claims. Back up your idea of what is going on in the world with observations, notably observations you can put a number on.

Comment author: Lumifer 28 March 2017 02:31:02PM 1 point [-]

They can. Though the people who came up with the infrared spectroscopy technique may not have been analytical chemists by trade.

You are confused between showing that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and developing climate models of the planet Earth.

Coastal flooding damages infrastructure

Yes, but coastal flooding is a permanent feature of building on the coasts. Your point was that coastal flooding (and mass migrations and deaths) are (note: present tense) the result of global warming.This is (note: present tense) not true. There are people who say that this will become (note: future tense) true, but these people are making a forecast.

Solar energy comes to mind

At which point we are talking about the whole energy infrastructure of the society and not about the costs of cars.

Comment author: dglukhov 28 March 2017 03:41:32PM 0 points [-]

You are confused between showing that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and developing climate models of the planet Earth.

What other inferential steps does a person need to be shown to tell them that because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and because there's a lot more of it around than there used to be, that CO2 cascades into a warming event?

There are people who say that this will become (note: future tense) true, but these people are making a forecast.

The recent weather anomalies hitting earth imply the future is here.

At which point we are talking about the whole energy infrastructure of the society and not about the costs of cars.

Indeed, so why not debate at the metalevel of the infrastructure, and see where the results of that debate lead in terms of their impacts on the automotive industry? It is a massive industry, worth trillions of dollars globally, any impacts on energy infrastructure will have lasting impacts on the automotive industry.

Comment author: Lumifer 28 March 2017 02:45:31PM 1 point [-]

It is easy to illustrate that carbon dioxide ... causes global warming directly.

Actually, not that easy because the greenhouse effect is dominated by water vapor. CO2 certainly is a greenhouse gas and certainly contributes to global warming, but the explanation is somewhat more complicated than you make it out to be.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today far exceeds natural levels ever before seen on earth.

This is not true.

The relationship has been quantified already.

Demonstrate, please.

Comment author: dglukhov 28 March 2017 03:19:12PM 0 points [-]

This is not true.

According to what sources, and how did they verify? Do you distrust the sampling techniques used to gather data on carbon dioxide levels before recorded history?

Demonstrate, please.

What more could you possibly need? I just showed you evidence pointing to unnatural amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Disturb that balance, you cause warming. This cascades into heavier rainfall, higher levels of water vapor and other greenhouse gases, and you get a sort of runaway reaction.

Comment author: Elo 27 March 2017 01:58:40PM 0 points [-]

Cars are net positive.

Edit: ignoring global warming because it's really hard to quantify. Just comparing deaths to global productivity increase because of cars. Cars are a net positive.

Edit 2:

Edit: ignoring global warming because it's really hard to quantify

Clarification - it's hard to quantify the direct relationship of cars to global warming. Duh there's a relationship, but I really don't want to have a debate here. Ignoring that factor for a moment, net value of productivity of cars vs productivity lost by some deaths. Yea. Let's compare that.

Comment author: dglukhov 28 March 2017 01:05:09PM 0 points [-]

Clarification - it's hard to quantify the direct relationship of cars to global warming

It is easy to illustrate that carbon dioxide, the major byproduct of internal combustion found in most car models today, causes global warming directly. If you look at this graph, you'll notice that solar radiation spans a large range of wavelengths of light. Most of these wavelengths of light get absorbed by our upper atmosphere according to chemical composition of said atmosphere, except for certain wavelengths in the UV region of the spectrum (that's the part of the spectrum most commercial sunscreens are designed to block). Different chemicals have different ranges over which wavelengths of light can excite their stable forms. Carbon dioxide, as it turns out, can be irradiated over a portion of the spectrum in the IR range, in the region around wavenumber 2351. When light is absorbed by carbon dioxide, it causes vibration in the molecule, which gets dissipated as heat, since this is technically an excitation of the molecule. This is why carbon dioxide is considered a greenhouse gas, because it absorbs solar energy in the form of light as an input, then dissipates that energy after vibrational excitation as output.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today far exceeds natural levels ever before seen on earth. There are, of course, natural fluctuations of these levels going up and down (according to natural carbon fixing processes), but the overall trend is very distinct, obvious, and significant. We are putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere through our combustion processes than the earth can fix out of the atmosphere.

The relationship has been quantified already. Please understand, there is absolutely no need to obscure this debate with claims that the relationship is hard to quantify. It is not, it has been done, the body of research surrounding this topic is quite robust, similarly to how robust the body of research around CFCs is. I will not stand idly by while people continue to misunderstand the situation. Your urge to ignore this factor indicates either misunderstanding of the situation, or it indicates an aversion to a highly politicized topic. In either case, it does not excuse the claim you made. The less obscurity on the topic exists, the better.

View more: Next