3 ms·
There are 2 types of people. Those who think in statics and those who think in dynamics. Climate change is not basic back of the envelope calculation specifical
by offby37years 6y ago
There are 2 types of people. Those who think in statics and those who think in dynamics. Climate change is not basic back of the envelope calculation specifically because we're dealing with a dynamic system. The more complex the world, the less you can grasp it from academic studies.
- Retric 6y agoIn what way is that complexity meaningful? If I put a pot of water on the stove the specific way the water swirls around is a chaotic non linear system, but it’s not going to keep the water from warming up. Similarly, if hypothetically increased global temperature results in increased cloud formation that reduces the impact of climate change that presupposes some increase in temperature otherwise the change in cloud formation doesn’t happen. As such it’s reasonable to argue about the magnitude of change but not the direction of change. I can clearly see arguing about a specific location bucking global trends because there complexity actually plays a direct role, thus the term climate change. But, globally I can’t see how everywhere on average would buck these trends.
- offby37years 6y agoThat complexity is meaningful as it precludes precise modelling. Now that does not mean we should not curb CO2 emissions, rather it is the degree of opacity and uncertainty in a system, as well as asymmetry in effect, rather than specific model predictions, that should drive the precautionary measures. Push a complex system too far and it will not come back. The popular belief that uncertainty undermines the case for taking seriously the "climate crisis" that scientists tell us we face is the opposite of the truth. Properly understood, as driving the case for precaution, uncertainty radically underscores that case, and may even constitute it.