4 ms·

I'm not convinced that the climate model is accurate - climate modeling is a billion times more complex than a 3 body problem which we can't solve. Nor am I c

I'm not convinced that the climate model is accurate - climate modeling is a billion times more complex than a 3 body problem which we can't solve. Nor am I convinced that the increase in co2 is human driven. Or that we know how the atmosphere will react with such increase

snowwrestler 9y ago
Computer global climate models are not accurate. They are the best approximations we can do today given the theoretical knowledge and data we have available. This often trips up engineers, who associate computer modeling with the concept of a known system. But climate models are scientific, not engineering. They exist to explore uncertainty. The theory of anthropogenic climate change does not depend on global climate models. If they did not exist at all, we would have the same concerns about climate change. The models are based on the theory, not the other way around.
- jamez1 9y ago
  The feedback loops that cause everyone to worry come from global climate models. How do we know that the plants won't absorb all of the excess CO2 without studying the local effects? The world is full of positive and negative feedback loops, discussing linear effects on the earth without taking into account these loops won't get us very far.
  - snowwrestler 9y ago
    They mostly don't. The models help us make detailed predictions, but you don't need a computer model to know that warmer air holds more water vapor, or that reducing snow cover reduces albedo. A lot of the biggest questions about how climate change will play out can't be well-modeled yet--like cloud formation, methane deposits in deep ocean or permafrost, etc. We need to learn more, and as we do, we feed that into the models and they improve. > How do we know that the plants won't absorb all of the excess CO2 without studying the local effects? We know that plants aren't absorbing all the excess CO2 because we directly measure CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, and they are going up.
bantunes 9y ago
That's preposterous. If it's not human influence, what is it then? What is this magical alternative to the emissions right in our face? What else has made the Arctic ice sheet shrink over the years? Are we magically absorbing more heat than 200 years ago? Getting closer to the Sun? Axial tilt shift? Gremlins? Wake up.
- basurihn 9y ago
  Dansgaard-Oerscher cycles?

snowwrestler 9y ago

Computer global climate models are not accurate. They are the best approximations we can do today given the theoretical knowledge and data we have available. This often trips up engineers, who associate computer modeling with the concept of a known system. But climate models are scientific, not engineering. They exist to explore uncertainty. The theory of anthropogenic climate change does not depend on global climate models. If they did not exist at all, we would have the same concerns about climate change. The models are based on the theory, not the other way around.

jamez1 9y ago
The feedback loops that cause everyone to worry come from global climate models. How do we know that the plants won't absorb all of the excess CO2 without studying the local effects? The world is full of positive and negative feedback loops, discussing linear effects on the earth without taking into account these loops won't get us very far.
- snowwrestler 9y ago
  They mostly don't. The models help us make detailed predictions, but you don't need a computer model to know that warmer air holds more water vapor, or that reducing snow cover reduces albedo. A lot of the biggest questions about how climate change will play out can't be well-modeled yet--like cloud formation, methane deposits in deep ocean or permafrost, etc. We need to learn more, and as we do, we feed that into the models and they improve. > How do we know that the plants won't absorb all of the excess CO2 without studying the local effects? We know that plants aren't absorbing all the excess CO2 because we directly measure CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, and they are going up.

bantunes 9y ago

That's preposterous. If it's not human influence, what is it then? What is this magical alternative to the emissions right in our face? What else has made the Arctic ice sheet shrink over the years? Are we magically absorbing more heat than 200 years ago? Getting closer to the Sun? Axial tilt shift? Gremlins? Wake up.

basurihn 9y ago
Dansgaard-Oerscher cycles?

I'm not convinced that the climate model is accurate - ​ climate modeling is a billion times more complex than a 3 body problem which we can't solve. Nor am I c

I'm not convinced that the climate model is accurate - ​ climate modeling is a billion times more complex than a 3 body problem which we can't solve. Nor am I c

I'm not convinced that the climate model is accurate - climate modeling is a billion times more complex than a 3 body problem which we can't solve. Nor am I c

I'm not convinced that the climate model is accurate - climate modeling is a billion times more complex than a 3 body problem which we can't solve. Nor am I c