34 ms·

Yes, that's pretty much in agreement with how I imagined it would be. I'm not personally trying to model it, though it might be a fun project one-day when I'm n

Yes, that's pretty much in agreement with how I imagined it would be. I'm not personally trying to model it, though it might be a fun project one-day when I'm not feeling so against fighting a steaming pile of professor-written simulation code. Most of my job was doing just that years ago and I'm glad to be away from it now! But my point is that almost nobody has done climate models! Probably 100% of people on the internet saying "It's definitely caused by people and it's definitely going to destroy civilization unless we all take action now and buy electric cars" are basing it all on trust in authorities and political rhetoric. They didn't even work out the economics of what harmful effects that would have. (eg. we need oil for food, poor people need it to earn money). This isn't like being an anti-flat-earther where you probably can actually look up some data and do some hand calculations and prove it wrong. This is just blind trust in the conclusions.

kaybe 8y ago
It depends on how much exactness you want. The fact that more CO2 means more energy coming into the system is easy to work out. What the scientific staff does is more akin to researching the 'potatoeness' of the Earth rather than just figuring out it's round. The economic impacts are researched as well, IPCC working group 2 I think? It's just not my area of expertise.
- lopmotr 8y ago
  > The fact that more CO2 means more energy coming into the system is easy to work out Not easy to work out that it'll be a problem. We've known that for 100 years haven't we? But people didn't seem to be sure it would be a disaster back then. Hell, even in the early 2000s when I was a science teacher, we'd get the kids to build little greenhouses and demonstrate the effect but the text book emphasized that "This is only a theory, and we're not sure what will happen with Earth.". Knowing the basic principle was obviously not sufficient to be sure of the outcome. If you don't work out the finer details, then you can only trust others with the "It's important, honestly it really is!" message. I know I sound like an anti-climate change-ist but I'm really an anti-sheep-people-ist, skeptical of things that have signs of religious faith such as appeal to consensus, being certain of their claims, predicting doom on disbelievers, and insulting and silencing people for heretical speech or doubt, and proselytizing.
  - southern_cross 8y ago
    > I know I sound like an anti-climate change-ist but I'm really an anti-sheep-people-ist, skeptical of things that have signs of religious faith such as appeal to consensus, being certain of their claims, predicting doom on disbelievers, and insulting and silencing people for heretical speech or doubt, and proselytizing. Bingo! There is so much about the current situation that sounds not at all like science but rather so much like doomsday cultism that it's hard to take a lot of what's being said seriously. Bouts of this warped type of thinking aren't at all new, either, but rather date back throughout much of human history, and they have often been associated with religious dogma. As to your experiments, I gather what was actually being demonstrated here was just the actual greenhouse effect rather than any greenhouse _gas_ effect, much less one associated with CO2. I mean, unless maybe you actually played around with the CO2 levels during those experiments. Which, given the minuscule CO2 levels that we're talking about - around 410 ppm (0.041%) even today - would have required rather extreme care and precision.

kaybe 8y ago

It depends on how much exactness you want. The fact that more CO2 means more energy coming into the system is easy to work out. What the scientific staff does is more akin to researching the 'potatoeness' of the Earth rather than just figuring out it's round. The economic impacts are researched as well, IPCC working group 2 I think? It's just not my area of expertise.

lopmotr 8y ago
> The fact that more CO2 means more energy coming into the system is easy to work out Not easy to work out that it'll be a problem. We've known that for 100 years haven't we? But people didn't seem to be sure it would be a disaster back then. Hell, even in the early 2000s when I was a science teacher, we'd get the kids to build little greenhouses and demonstrate the effect but the text book emphasized that "This is only a theory, and we're not sure what will happen with Earth.". Knowing the basic principle was obviously not sufficient to be sure of the outcome. If you don't work out the finer details, then you can only trust others with the "It's important, honestly it really is!" message. I know I sound like an anti-climate change-ist but I'm really an anti-sheep-people-ist, skeptical of things that have signs of religious faith such as appeal to consensus, being certain of their claims, predicting doom on disbelievers, and insulting and silencing people for heretical speech or doubt, and proselytizing.
- southern_cross 8y ago
  > I know I sound like an anti-climate change-ist but I'm really an anti-sheep-people-ist, skeptical of things that have signs of religious faith such as appeal to consensus, being certain of their claims, predicting doom on disbelievers, and insulting and silencing people for heretical speech or doubt, and proselytizing. Bingo! There is so much about the current situation that sounds not at all like science but rather so much like doomsday cultism that it's hard to take a lot of what's being said seriously. Bouts of this warped type of thinking aren't at all new, either, but rather date back throughout much of human history, and they have often been associated with religious dogma. As to your experiments, I gather what was actually being demonstrated here was just the actual greenhouse effect rather than any greenhouse _gas_ effect, much less one associated with CO2. I mean, unless maybe you actually played around with the CO2 levels during those experiments. Which, given the minuscule CO2 levels that we're talking about - around 410 ppm (0.041%) even today - would have required rather extreme care and precision.