3 ms·

>one possible situation that would help convince me is if we had a "control" planet So on this one issue it's impossible for you to be convinced.

• guscost 11y ago
  Not at all, there could be plenty of other evidence, I just can't imagine what it would be. Other than some kind of control planet, or maybe a complete overturning of nonlinear dynamics and/or chaos theory maybe. Of course, if the ocean was engulfing whole communities faster than people could run uphill, or people were choking on CO2, I'd probably be a whole lot less rational about it and say "let's throw things at the wall to see what sticks." But so far, and after reading what I figure are among the strongest arguments out there, it still looks like your typical doomsday story dressed up as science.
  • nitrogen 11y ago
    Okay, ignore warming if you like. We still need to stop producing so much CO2 because it's acidifying the oceans and destroying ecosystems we depend on for food.
  • lotharbot 11y ago
    the thing about nonlinear dynamics/chaos is that it still allows for some degree of control and prediction -- not in the sense of being able to predict one specific trajectory, but in the sense of being able to make statistical predictions about likely regions for the trajectory to pass through, and even to be able to apply small controls to change a trajectory drastically and potentially keep it out of entire regions. See, for example, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2001.00223.x/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2001.... (yet another tribolium paper. The favorite insect of nonlinear dynamics and chaos books everywhere.) I don't think we need to overturn anything mathematically to be able to talk sensibly about climate models, predictions, complex forcing mechanisms, and control. We just have to stop putting the cart before the horse (or the shady politician before the scientist) and look at what can be done to stabilize the ecosystem -- not necessarily worrying about catastrophic predictions, but simply looking at some of the measurable negative effects (like acidifying oceans, brought up in a sibling comment) and determining how to control the system in order to slow or even reverse those effects.
  • jberryman 11y ago
    > I'd probably be a whole lot less rational... I think you imagine that you are being very rational, because you've studied some climate science and believe you're intelligent enough to form your own judgement, but you're wrong. It's extremely irrational to dismiss the consensus opinion of climate science researchers based on your own (epistomologically limited, non-professional-climate-scientist) assessment of their research. > it still looks like your typical doomsday story dressed up as science. And say the likelihood of this doomsday scenario being correct is 10% by your assessment: do you think a rational risk analysis would conclude that we should do nothing and go about business as usual? Do you also enjoy playing russian roulette when your not skimming climate science articles?