4 ms·
> Seems like evidence that our current climate change might be random. To me, it seems like (strong) evidence that climate can change. And that there is a cau
by SideburnsOfDoom 7y ago
> Seems like evidence that our current climate change might be random.
To me, it seems like (strong) evidence that climate can change.
And that there is a cause of this change, and that the cause that can be found. Maybe volcanic, meteoric, related to vegetation levels, or other?
Which is, I think, the _opposite_ of random. It is understandable and predictable.
> How do you rule out random climate variation scientifically?
Outside of quantum physics, "it was random" is not a scientific explanation. Science finds causes.
When applied to "our current climate change", the idea that climate can change and change a lot, in response to causes, well, that provides the opposite conclusion to yours doesn't it: we can see the causes this time.
- chrisco255 7y agoIt's not that it's random. It's that it is a non-linear, dynamic system. What that means is that if you have the perfect climate model (which, we don't) and you're off on your input of the parameters to that model by the slightest bit, the outcomes will veer off wildly from modeled expectations.
- SideburnsOfDoom 7y agoDoesn't that apply to weather much more than it does to climate?
- chrisco255 7y agoClimate is just the average of weather over a long period of time. It applies to both. The only difference is the units. There are hundreds of cycles and factors that influence climate. We don't have all of them modeled, nor quantified. So there are unknown unknowns.
- SideburnsOfDoom 7y ago> The only difference is the units Negative. It's quite possible (even likely) that the odds of a major hurricane hitting Florida next week are down to "a non-linear, dynamic system" and you're tying to predict which why the storm will "veer off wildly", while the average number and total intensity of storms over the next ten years is neither of those.