11 ms·

My doubt comes from not having faith in models of complex systems. There are a lot of people who share that sentiment. If it requires a PhD and a computer mod

My doubt comes from not having faith in models of complex systems. There are a lot of people who share that sentiment. If it requires a PhD and a computer model to understand some thing, it should be a given that there be skeptics.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
baddox 6y ago
What about, for instance, all the successful engineering that is driven by models of complex systems? We don't understand bridge dynamics at an atomic level, we have complex models that require a lot of specialized education to create, understand, and use. Same goes for microprocessor engineering. No human understands the design of a modern CPU at a transistor level, that design is also handled by computers (again guided by humans with specialized education).
- deathgrips 6y ago
  We can build bridges and build microprocessors. No one has bottled up one "Earth's atmosphere" in a lab and run controlled experiments on it. It's not empirical.
  - Retric 6y ago
    People actually did do just that. Historically, high altitude balloons where used study the atmosphere and gather temperature, pressure, etc. Then it’s just a question of shining light through various atmospheric mixes to see how they respond to sunlight. Rockets and satellites then refined our understanding over time. The basic question of global warming is a fairly simple physics problem, it’s because people care so much about absolutely tiny differences that such complex models are used. Aka Mercury vs Venus surface temperatures closely line up with simple models, but on earth people care about +/- 0.1 C and even more so in terms of local weather patterns.
  - gameswithgo 6y ago
    We have decades of data at this point that it has been getting warmer, and that less energy has been escaping into space specifically in the spectrums that co2 traps ( from satellites), in exactly the amounts expected from the c02 delta we have measured over that time (from isotope analysis, we can tell that WE added it via burning fossil fuels) It is as certain and clear as science ever is. The idea that it isn't is due to propaganda that is very convincing.
    - darawk 6y ago
      It is extremely far from as certain as science ever is. Randomized, controlled experiments are as certain as science ever is. This is pretty far from that. The evidence is as good as any non-controlled experiment is going to be, perhaps. But it's pretty important that we not confuse these kinds of descriptive results with the actual certainty that comes from high powered controlled trials. It's extremely easy to make reasoning errors in descriptive data analysis, that look very convincing.
  - baddox 6y ago
    The point is that the models and their accompanying scientific descriptions provide explanatory power that is a valid source of knowledge even though it is not empirical (empiricism is a false epistemology, but that's a topic for another time). If you have a bridge design produced according to good models, and another bridge design produced without using any such models or engineering knowledge, the epistemological status of the claims "this bridge design is safe" is different between the two bridge designs. That is true even before each bridge is actually built, and if it weren't true, then there would be no reason to have laws requiring bridges to be built according to certain standards (since "we wouldn't know if it's safe until we build it").
deathgrips 6y ago
Yes. You can't run controlled experiments to study the complex system of the Earth's atmosphere. It's not empirical.
- neaden 6y ago
  That's not what the word empirical means.
delecti 6y ago
It may require a complicated computer model to pin down exactly what the effects will be, but it doesn't take any of that to accept the basic premises that lead to accepting climate change. We know (and have known for over 100 years) that CO2 in the atmosphere slows the escape of heat energy, which means the equilibrium temperature will go up. The specifics of 1 degree or 1.5 or 1.6 are more complicated, but it's really as simple as that. When I was in grade school, we learned that there were 300 PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere, and now they're learning that there are 400 PPM of CO2. It may take some math to figure out how much warmer you'll get, but it's simple enough to realize that if you go outside on a comfortable sunny day, and then put on a blanket, you'll get warmer.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  The problematic aspects of climate change aren't its first-order effects. The worst case scenarios involve warming by a couple of degrees Celsius - much smaller than existing variations from day to day or city to city. The only reason we're concerned is that we expect, based on climate modeling, that a worldwide shift of even this relatively small magnitude will have large second order effects.
  - delecti 6y ago
    But you're getting into "why is warming bad?", when the issue is people doubting that warming might be an outcome at all.
- darawk 6y ago
  It isn't actually that simple, though. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere in isolation, with no reaction from the environment will indeed cause warming. But we don't live in a static model. The environment reacts to things in complex ways. It's entirely possible that adding CO2 to the environment could have caused cooling, in equilibrium (by, e.g. increasing tree density in response to the increased fuel, leading to an ultimately cooler climate). It doesn't happen to work out that way, unfortunately, but it was a possibility.
  - 6y ago
gameswithgo 6y ago
It doesn't require a PHD, you don't have to count on models, because it has already been happening for a long time. The complex models are necessary to put tight bounds on the outcome, but that it is going to get warmer is easy to show.
defterGoose 6y ago
You're right that it should be a given, given human beings' innate distrust of authority. But that doesn't mean it's not also stupid and anti-intellectual. We certainly didn't get to the moon without some PhDs and computer models.
JacksonGariety 6y ago
Yes but should be base global policy on skepticism? Especially when the stakes are so high?
jeffbee 6y ago
It sounds like your doubts come from ignorance alone. There is a difference between ignorance and skepticism. For fifty years climate models have successfully predicted the future which became the now-observed past. Later models are more accurate than previous ones. The IPCC #4 models based on data known in 2000 were right on the money in predicting the subsequent 20 years. It may be true that you don't understand these models, but that does not constitute grounds for doubting them. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-mo...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

baddox 6y ago

What about, for instance, all the successful engineering that is driven by models of complex systems? We don't understand bridge dynamics at an atomic level, we have complex models that require a lot of specialized education to create, understand, and use. Same goes for microprocessor engineering. No human understands the design of a modern CPU at a transistor level, that design is also handled by computers (again guided by humans with specialized education).

deathgrips 6y ago
We can build bridges and build microprocessors. No one has bottled up one "Earth's atmosphere" in a lab and run controlled experiments on it. It's not empirical.
- Retric 6y ago
  People actually did do just that. Historically, high altitude balloons where used study the atmosphere and gather temperature, pressure, etc. Then it’s just a question of shining light through various atmospheric mixes to see how they respond to sunlight. Rockets and satellites then refined our understanding over time. The basic question of global warming is a fairly simple physics problem, it’s because people care so much about absolutely tiny differences that such complex models are used. Aka Mercury vs Venus surface temperatures closely line up with simple models, but on earth people care about +/- 0.1 C and even more so in terms of local weather patterns.
- gameswithgo 6y ago
  We have decades of data at this point that it has been getting warmer, and that less energy has been escaping into space specifically in the spectrums that co2 traps ( from satellites), in exactly the amounts expected from the c02 delta we have measured over that time (from isotope analysis, we can tell that WE added it via burning fossil fuels) It is as certain and clear as science ever is. The idea that it isn't is due to propaganda that is very convincing.
  - darawk 6y ago
    It is extremely far from as certain as science ever is. Randomized, controlled experiments are as certain as science ever is. This is pretty far from that. The evidence is as good as any non-controlled experiment is going to be, perhaps. But it's pretty important that we not confuse these kinds of descriptive results with the actual certainty that comes from high powered controlled trials. It's extremely easy to make reasoning errors in descriptive data analysis, that look very convincing.
- baddox 6y ago
  The point is that the models and their accompanying scientific descriptions provide explanatory power that is a valid source of knowledge even though it is not empirical (empiricism is a false epistemology, but that's a topic for another time). If you have a bridge design produced according to good models, and another bridge design produced without using any such models or engineering knowledge, the epistemological status of the claims "this bridge design is safe" is different between the two bridge designs. That is true even before each bridge is actually built, and if it weren't true, then there would be no reason to have laws requiring bridges to be built according to certain standards (since "we wouldn't know if it's safe until we build it").

deathgrips 6y ago

Yes. You can't run controlled experiments to study the complex system of the Earth's atmosphere. It's not empirical.

neaden 6y ago
That's not what the word empirical means.

delecti 6y ago

It may require a complicated computer model to pin down exactly what the effects will be, but it doesn't take any of that to accept the basic premises that lead to accepting climate change. We know (and have known for over 100 years) that CO2 in the atmosphere slows the escape of heat energy, which means the equilibrium temperature will go up. The specifics of 1 degree or 1.5 or 1.6 are more complicated, but it's really as simple as that. When I was in grade school, we learned that there were 300 PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere, and now they're learning that there are 400 PPM of CO2. It may take some math to figure out how much warmer you'll get, but it's simple enough to realize that if you go outside on a comfortable sunny day, and then put on a blanket, you'll get warmer.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
The problematic aspects of climate change aren't its first-order effects. The worst case scenarios involve warming by a couple of degrees Celsius - much smaller than existing variations from day to day or city to city. The only reason we're concerned is that we expect, based on climate modeling, that a worldwide shift of even this relatively small magnitude will have large second order effects.
- delecti 6y ago
  But you're getting into "why is warming bad?", when the issue is people doubting that warming might be an outcome at all.
darawk 6y ago
It isn't actually that simple, though. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere in isolation, with no reaction from the environment will indeed cause warming. But we don't live in a static model. The environment reacts to things in complex ways. It's entirely possible that adding CO2 to the environment could have caused cooling, in equilibrium (by, e.g. increasing tree density in response to the increased fuel, leading to an ultimately cooler climate). It doesn't happen to work out that way, unfortunately, but it was a possibility.
- 6y ago

gameswithgo 6y ago

It doesn't require a PHD, you don't have to count on models, because it has already been happening for a long time. The complex models are necessary to put tight bounds on the outcome, but that it is going to get warmer is easy to show.

defterGoose 6y ago

You're right that it should be a given, given human beings' innate distrust of authority. But that doesn't mean it's not also stupid and anti-intellectual. We certainly didn't get to the moon without some PhDs and computer models.

JacksonGariety 6y ago

Yes but should be base global policy on skepticism? Especially when the stakes are so high?

jeffbee 6y ago

It sounds like your doubts come from ignorance alone. There is a difference between ignorance and skepticism. For fifty years climate models have successfully predicted the future which became the now-observed past. Later models are more accurate than previous ones. The IPCC #4 models based on data known in 2000 were right on the money in predicting the subsequent 20 years. It may be true that you don't understand these models, but that does not constitute grounds for doubting them. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-mo...