4 ms·

Not quite the same. Climate scientists are notoriously bad at predicting consequences of climate change - kind of like how meteorologists are often bad at predi

by ythn 9y ago

Not quite the same. Climate scientists are notoriously bad at predicting consequences of climate change - kind of like how meteorologists are often bad at predicting the weather. Why is it okay to be skeptical of what meteorologists are predicting, but not okay to be skeptical of what climate scientists are predicting? It's one thing to be skeptical of sciences that have stood the test of time like civil engineering and quite another to be skeptical of climate science, whose models are being updated annually in response to the discovery of new variables. Note: I am not saying we should be climate change deniers, only that we should not blindly accept apocalyptic predictions as the gospel truth of what is going to happen to the planet if we fail to mitigate CO2.

Sharlin 9y ago
> Climate scientists are notoriously bad at predicting consequences of climate change [citation needed] Equating "weather" and "climate" is such an old and tired fallacious argument that you ought to be downvoted to oblivion just because of that.
- ythn 9y ago
  I didn't equate them. The analogy is that weather is extremely complicated, so much so that meteorologists struggle to predict what will happen in the next 12 hours. If climate is an order of magnitude more complicated than weather, why should the predictions suddenly be much more accurate? My local meteorologists get the prediction right maybe 70% of the time. You're telling me the apocalyptic climate predictions approach 100% accuracy and that I have no room for skepticism?
  - JshWright 9y ago
    > If climate is an order of magnitude more complicated than weather, why should the predictions suddenly be much more accurate? For the same reason a doctor can't predict if an individual patient will have a heart attack, but a public health researcher can accurately predict the overall rate of heart attacks in a population. Forecasting weather is trying to predict a single event. That is by definition harder than predicting a trend of averages.
lurker456 9y ago
That's akin to demanding that all engineers accurately predict which piece of the roof will collapse first, where the pieces will hit the floor, how many pieces it will break up into and on which date. The overwhelming consensus of experts is that its going to have an enormous impact. It's still worth studying when, how and where its effects will materialize first but that does not excuse inaction.
- ythn 9y ago
  > The overwhelming consensus of experts is that its going to have an enormous impact. How soon? Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" predicted apocalyptic consequences in as few as 10 years. 10 years later and it turns out the documentary had tons of erroneous assumptions. Oops. > That's akin to demanding that all engineers accurately predict which piece of the roof will collapse first, where the pieces will hit the floor, how many pieces it will break up into and on which date. If your model has poor predictive power, it's not a complete model. Engineers can accurately predict lots of things using standard models - for example whether a building will be able to withstand shear wind forces. Climate science cannot predict anything except "it will be disastrous with apocalyptic proportions at some non-deterministic point in the future" How is that a useful prediction beyond generating hype?
  - lurker456 9y ago
    >How soon? In a couple of lifetimes, which is still too soon, as reversing the trend will likely take far more effort. For a graphic description of how far we're venturing out of what we're used to as a species, see https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/ > If your model has poor predictive power, it's not a complete model - for example whether a building will be able to withstand shear wind forces. To continue with the analogy, we know the building can't withstand shear wind forces. We just don't know exactly how and where the pieces will land.
    - ythn 9y ago
      Well, here's my prediction: climate change is real, but 100 years from now it won't turn out to be as apocalyptic as the experts claimed it will be. People will start reducing waste once they start seeing real consequences and technological solutions will emerge as exponentially more people start thinking about the problem each year. In the meantime, other factors will contribute to our downfall much faster than climate change ever could such as increasing societal divisiveness over politics, decline in nuclear families as the basic societal unit, selfishness, and abandonment of religion.
JshWright 9y ago
> Why is it okay to be skeptical of what meteorologists are predicting, but not okay to be skeptical of what climate scientists are predicting? Because you can predict that a slot machine will be a net profit maker for a casino without being able to predict the result of the next pull of the lever. Of course climate models are continually updated as technology and data improves (as are the models used in structural engineering). That is how science works. Historically, though, the mainstream (IPCC) models have actually performed quite well. https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
codecamper 9y ago
You are right. What if the scientists have not predicted the full effects of too much CO2 in the atmosphere? Ever consider that one?
saalweachter 9y ago
Why is there still a pop culture cliche of weathermen being terrible at their job? Precipitation forecasts are usually accurate several days out and temperature forecasts are good a week or two out, in my experience. If I want to know if it's going to rain on Saturday I check the weather on Thursday and it's usually right. When there's a big storm comin', a local meteorologist does rolling updates with the latest data and it usually gives a consistent but evolving picture that matches up with what actually happens. Are people disappointed by this? What are you wanting out of your weathermen that you're not getting? I know the weatherman used to be a joke, back before satellites and computers, but I swear the cliche only survives as part of climate change denialism.
- mark-r 9y ago
  Yes they're usually right about whether it's going to rain or not, but often they're completely wrong about how much it's going to rain. They can tell you whether tomorrow will be warmer or colder than today, but the exact temperature still eludes them. Since the whole climate debate is about a matter of degrees, it's natural to be skeptical.
  - saalweachter 9y ago
    I'm also pretty satisfied with the forecasts on those numbers as well, within the bounds of what is reasonable to forecast. During big events, snowstorms and hurricanes, the local meteorologist will break the area I'm in into ~7 regions and give guidance like 'zones 5-7 will get 3-6" of snow, zones 1&2 12-18"' or '3-4 inches of rain north of 84'.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ocschwar 9y ago
Climate predictions made in 1989 versus today: https://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v7/n https://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v7/n 3/full/nclimate3224.html?WT.feed_name=subjects_climate-sciences Climate models are actually better than meteorological models, but they predict things decades out.

by ythn 9y ago

Sharlin 9y ago

> Climate scientists are notoriously bad at predicting consequences of climate change [citation needed] Equating "weather" and "climate" is such an old and tired fallacious argument that you ought to be downvoted to oblivion just because of that.

ythn 9y ago
I didn't equate them. The analogy is that weather is extremely complicated, so much so that meteorologists struggle to predict what will happen in the next 12 hours. If climate is an order of magnitude more complicated than weather, why should the predictions suddenly be much more accurate? My local meteorologists get the prediction right maybe 70% of the time. You're telling me the apocalyptic climate predictions approach 100% accuracy and that I have no room for skepticism?
- JshWright 9y ago
  > If climate is an order of magnitude more complicated than weather, why should the predictions suddenly be much more accurate? For the same reason a doctor can't predict if an individual patient will have a heart attack, but a public health researcher can accurately predict the overall rate of heart attacks in a population. Forecasting weather is trying to predict a single event. That is by definition harder than predicting a trend of averages.

lurker456 9y ago

That's akin to demanding that all engineers accurately predict which piece of the roof will collapse first, where the pieces will hit the floor, how many pieces it will break up into and on which date. The overwhelming consensus of experts is that its going to have an enormous impact. It's still worth studying when, how and where its effects will materialize first but that does not excuse inaction.

ythn 9y ago
> The overwhelming consensus of experts is that its going to have an enormous impact. How soon? Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" predicted apocalyptic consequences in as few as 10 years. 10 years later and it turns out the documentary had tons of erroneous assumptions. Oops. > That's akin to demanding that all engineers accurately predict which piece of the roof will collapse first, where the pieces will hit the floor, how many pieces it will break up into and on which date. If your model has poor predictive power, it's not a complete model. Engineers can accurately predict lots of things using standard models - for example whether a building will be able to withstand shear wind forces. Climate science cannot predict anything except "it will be disastrous with apocalyptic proportions at some non-deterministic point in the future" How is that a useful prediction beyond generating hype?
- lurker456 9y ago
  >How soon? In a couple of lifetimes, which is still too soon, as reversing the trend will likely take far more effort. For a graphic description of how far we're venturing out of what we're used to as a species, see https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/ > If your model has poor predictive power, it's not a complete model - for example whether a building will be able to withstand shear wind forces. To continue with the analogy, we know the building can't withstand shear wind forces. We just don't know exactly how and where the pieces will land.
  - ythn 9y ago
    Well, here's my prediction: climate change is real, but 100 years from now it won't turn out to be as apocalyptic as the experts claimed it will be. People will start reducing waste once they start seeing real consequences and technological solutions will emerge as exponentially more people start thinking about the problem each year. In the meantime, other factors will contribute to our downfall much faster than climate change ever could such as increasing societal divisiveness over politics, decline in nuclear families as the basic societal unit, selfishness, and abandonment of religion.

JshWright 9y ago

> Why is it okay to be skeptical of what meteorologists are predicting, but not okay to be skeptical of what climate scientists are predicting? Because you can predict that a slot machine will be a net profit maker for a casino without being able to predict the result of the next pull of the lever. Of course climate models are continually updated as technology and data improves (as are the models used in structural engineering). That is how science works. Historically, though, the mainstream (IPCC) models have actually performed quite well. https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

codecamper 9y ago

You are right. What if the scientists have not predicted the full effects of too much CO2 in the atmosphere? Ever consider that one?

saalweachter 9y ago

Why is there still a pop culture cliche of weathermen being terrible at their job? Precipitation forecasts are usually accurate several days out and temperature forecasts are good a week or two out, in my experience. If I want to know if it's going to rain on Saturday I check the weather on Thursday and it's usually right. When there's a big storm comin', a local meteorologist does rolling updates with the latest data and it usually gives a consistent but evolving picture that matches up with what actually happens. Are people disappointed by this? What are you wanting out of your weathermen that you're not getting? I know the weatherman used to be a joke, back before satellites and computers, but I swear the cliche only survives as part of climate change denialism.

mark-r 9y ago
Yes they're usually right about whether it's going to rain or not, but often they're completely wrong about how much it's going to rain. They can tell you whether tomorrow will be warmer or colder than today, but the exact temperature still eludes them. Since the whole climate debate is about a matter of degrees, it's natural to be skeptical.
- saalweachter 9y ago
  I'm also pretty satisfied with the forecasts on those numbers as well, within the bounds of what is reasonable to forecast. During big events, snowstorms and hurricanes, the local meteorologist will break the area I'm in into ~7 regions and give guidance like 'zones 5-7 will get 3-6" of snow, zones 1&2 12-18"' or '3-4 inches of rain north of 84'.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

ocschwar 9y ago

Climate predictions made in 1989 versus today: https://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v7/n https://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v7/n 3/full/nclimate3224.html?WT.feed_name=subjects_climate-sciences Climate models are actually better than meteorological models, but they predict things decades out.