3 ms·
Those structural engineers benefit from the millions of repeatable experiments in engineering over the past few centuries. It is an extremely well understood su
by iand 9y ago
Those structural engineers benefit from the millions of repeatable experiments in engineering over the past few centuries. It is an extremely well understood subject. Climate science, by comparison, has no repeatable experiments on the scale of a planetary atmosphere and is in its infancy. No-one knows with certainty the impact of 400ppm vs 410ppm so they have to rely on speculative models, so it's right to treat climate science as less reliable than structural engineering.
- JshWright 9y agoWhile it's undeniable that structural engineering has been around longer than climate science, scepticism should be based on performance, not simply the age of the field. The mainstream (IPCC) models have quite accurately forecasted global temperatures and sea levels over the past couple decades. While climate science is a constant exercise in refinement (as all science should be), it's not a bunch of wild-ass guesses. I don't know of anyone who claims there is anything specifically meaningful about 400 vs 410pmm, it is simply a new record.