3 ms·

Science doesn’t work like that: “As people who develop models we must all know heep inside that we can make them say whatever we want.” You don’t like the assu

Science doesn’t work like that: “As people who develop models we must all know heep inside that we can make them say whatever we want.” You don’t like the assumptions the model made? Fine, make an argument as to why they’re the wrong assumptions or the model is flawed. The model with the best predictive power wins the day.

aldoushuxley001 8y ago
The irony being that IPCC models have a terrible track record of predictive success. So it seems maybe the best models dont win, but rather the most politically beneficial model wins
- torpfactory 8y ago
  I dunno man I just went and double checked the first IPCC report from 1990 and their estimates are pretty good... http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_first_assessment_1990_wg1.shtml http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_f...
cameldrv 8y ago
I believe in the basic consensus that the earth is warming due to human activity. Getting the magnitude right is very hard though, because it’s a complex system, we only have one data series, we have never experienced current or future conditions before, we can’t do controlled experiments, and our data is noisy and sometimes difficult to calibrate. This puts you in a situation where you may be able to predict direction accurately, but magnitude is very tough. Methane from melting permafrost and hydrates at the bottom of the ocean are just two examples that might cause a gross underestimate of warming impact.
- null000 8y ago
  The error bars are not large enough to be seriously confident that the problem can be ignored, though. Basically everything we have says that: * Humans are causing basically all of the warming happening, either directly or indirectly * All of that warming will eventually be enough to kill most or all of us within 40-100 years, especially if nothing is done, but even still eventually if we stick to current commitments. There's literally no reason to faff about anymore - we have direct, quantifiable evidence that people are being killed and displaced by climate change related events today, and it will only get worse as time goes on. Hurricanes are stronger, wild fires are wilder, sea levels are rising and driving people off of low lying islands, glaciers are melting, the northwest passage has stayed opened for literally the first time in living memory, coral reefs are overheating to death, species are migrating north or just straight up going extinct. This is a problem now and immediately that the human race needs to address in force.
  - ilove_banh_mi 8y ago
    "All of that warming will eventually be enough to kill most or all of us within 40-100 years." Given current human life expectancy, it is true that the vast majority of humans alive today will be dead in 100 years, but that is not your claim. You are asserting that continued, slow warming will directly kill most or all humans within the next 40-100 years. No scientific prediction, no IPCC report, matches that. Exaggeration is counter-productive and dishonest, not a virtue.

aldoushuxley001 8y ago

The irony being that IPCC models have a terrible track record of predictive success. So it seems maybe the best models dont win, but rather the most politically beneficial model wins

torpfactory 8y ago
I dunno man I just went and double checked the first IPCC report from 1990 and their estimates are pretty good... http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_first_assessment_1990_wg1.shtml http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_f...

cameldrv 8y ago

I believe in the basic consensus that the earth is warming due to human activity. Getting the magnitude right is very hard though, because it’s a complex system, we only have one data series, we have never experienced current or future conditions before, we can’t do controlled experiments, and our data is noisy and sometimes difficult to calibrate. This puts you in a situation where you may be able to predict direction accurately, but magnitude is very tough. Methane from melting permafrost and hydrates at the bottom of the ocean are just two examples that might cause a gross underestimate of warming impact.

null000 8y ago
The error bars are not large enough to be seriously confident that the problem can be ignored, though. Basically everything we have says that: * Humans are causing basically all of the warming happening, either directly or indirectly * All of that warming will eventually be enough to kill most or all of us within 40-100 years, especially if nothing is done, but even still eventually if we stick to current commitments. There's literally no reason to faff about anymore - we have direct, quantifiable evidence that people are being killed and displaced by climate change related events today, and it will only get worse as time goes on. Hurricanes are stronger, wild fires are wilder, sea levels are rising and driving people off of low lying islands, glaciers are melting, the northwest passage has stayed opened for literally the first time in living memory, coral reefs are overheating to death, species are migrating north or just straight up going extinct. This is a problem now and immediately that the human race needs to address in force.
- ilove_banh_mi 8y ago
  "All of that warming will eventually be enough to kill most or all of us within 40-100 years." Given current human life expectancy, it is true that the vast majority of humans alive today will be dead in 100 years, but that is not your claim. You are asserting that continued, slow warming will directly kill most or all humans within the next 40-100 years. No scientific prediction, no IPCC report, matches that. Exaggeration is counter-productive and dishonest, not a virtue.