5 ms·

The relentless doom saying gives the impression that there are some studies or research or science out there that can accurately make predictions of the sort yo

The relentless doom saying gives the impression that there are some studies or research or science out there that can accurately make predictions of the sort you are interested in, but as far as I know that’s not the case. I’m not aware of any system with a track record of predicting climates that far out. A volcano could erupt tomorrow and create much cooler climates around the world. Al Gore’s movie from the early 2000s said Florida would be underwater by now. What’s the actual sea level rise in the intervening period been? A cm or 2, if that?

ithkuil 5y ago
> Al Gore’s movie from the early 2000s said Florida would be underwater by now. Would our could? If a volcano could erupt then perhaps the sea also could rise? It's sad that it's so hard to talk about which of these are more likely without bringing up one's whole political identity into the discussion.
- premium-lizard 5y ago
  > Would our could? I doubt the movie expressed absolute certainty, but it was indisputably meant to be alarming. > the sea also could rise It wouldn't be surprising, since they've been rising for 20,000 years. The strange thing about sea rise is that the tens of meters of rise from before the industrial revolution were good and natural, whereas the centimeters since are evil, and definitely due to CO2 emissions.
  - Juliate 5y ago
    > I doubt the movie expressed absolute certainty, but it was indisputably meant to be alarming. Well, seasoned reasonable discourse from the scientific community started in the 70s (as well as knowledge of the issue among oil companies). So, you'd expect a 2000-dated discourse to be slightly more alarming, yes.
    - premium-lizard 5y ago
      > as well as knowledge of the issue among oil companies Oil companies don't have any special ability to predict the future state of a complex system. > So, you'd expect a 2000-dated discourse to be slightly more alarming, yes. Actually, the UN said in 1989 that whole nations might be wiped off the map if we didn't reverse global warming by 2000, so I might expect a 2000-dated discourse to have some humility, considering that the doom prophecy totally failed to materialize. But anyway, how did Gore's predictions fare?
      - Juliate 5y ago
        > Oil companies don't have any special ability to predict the future state of a complex system. No, but they definitely have the scientific knowledge to understand the scale at which they pump CO2 into the atmosphere and the first-order consequences this has. > But anyway, how did Gore's predictions fare? It's like when you fly a plane, never trust the instruments: "yeah, sure, the altimeter is going down, but you know, we're still in the air. Besides, the altimeter has a margin of error, so... we're good." We have a song for that in France: "Tout va très bien, Madame la Marquise, tout va très bien, tout va très bien...".
        premium-lizard 5y ago
        > No, but they definitely have the scientific knowledge to understand the scale at which they pump CO2 into the atmosphere and the first-order consequences this has. Check your hypothesis. There have been times in the past when CO2 went from, say, 3000 to 4000. Did the global average temperature do what you think it should? > It's like when you fly a plane I'm not seeing a number of correct predictions out of total predictions. What do we usually think when somebody has a hypothesis, and based on that hypothesis they make some testable predictions, and the predictions don't come true?
        scrollaway 5y ago
        You're not seeing correct predictions because you're choosing to look at the worst ones and you're not looking at the more average ones. I've seen dozens of instances of fairly scary predictions from 2000ish which were originally for 2050 and are coming true the last five years. Weather maps predicting scorching heat in France which i remember thinking "there's no way this will ever be that bad", and what do you know, it is that bad. Warnings about floods, glaciers entirely disappearing, heat domes. Warnings about the possibility of methane reservoirs releasing into the atmosphere as permafrost melts. These aren't warnings anymore, they're news stories from the past couple years. Do you somehow believe it's just a coincidence? That it'll get better, we don't need to do anything? Everything about what you're saying is a choice you are making. You are choosing to dismiss evidence. Choosing to adopt an attitude which lets you ignore reality. Choosing to put your fingers in your ears. Choosing to compare events that happen over millennia to events that happen over decades. Make better choices.
premium-lizard 5y ago
> I’m not aware of any system with a track record of predicting climates that far out. This is right. Nor is there going to be any such system. The climate is a complex system, meaning it's fundamentally not amenable to simulation. All the models are toys compared to the reality. None of them even attempt to actually simulate what's going on. Not only is it impossible because we don't even know what the phenomena are, it's extra impossible because there's not enough computational power. I doubt humanity is capable of accurately simulating the sugar in a stirred cup of coffee, much less figuring out what's going to be happening with the atmosphere tomorrow, much less 30 years from now. The models are (unavoidably, necessarily) just toys. They don't predict the future. Anyone who tells you that they are predicting the future with them is malicious or extremely naive. The models just masquerade as science to support political goals.
- piva00 5y ago
  > The models are (unavoidably, necessarily) just toys. They don't predict the future. Anyone who tells you that they are predicting the future with them is malicious or extremely naive. The models just masquerade as science to support political goals. What political goals? Source would be appreciated as well.
- Juliate 5y ago
  Yes, not screwing up the biome on which we all depend to live (and countless other species) is definitely a political motive. Is there a problem with that? Don't think so.

ithkuil 5y ago

> Al Gore’s movie from the early 2000s said Florida would be underwater by now. Would our could? If a volcano could erupt then perhaps the sea also could rise? It's sad that it's so hard to talk about which of these are more likely without bringing up one's whole political identity into the discussion.

premium-lizard 5y ago
> Would our could? I doubt the movie expressed absolute certainty, but it was indisputably meant to be alarming. > the sea also could rise It wouldn't be surprising, since they've been rising for 20,000 years. The strange thing about sea rise is that the tens of meters of rise from before the industrial revolution were good and natural, whereas the centimeters since are evil, and definitely due to CO2 emissions.
- Juliate 5y ago
  > I doubt the movie expressed absolute certainty, but it was indisputably meant to be alarming. Well, seasoned reasonable discourse from the scientific community started in the 70s (as well as knowledge of the issue among oil companies). So, you'd expect a 2000-dated discourse to be slightly more alarming, yes.
  - premium-lizard 5y ago
    > as well as knowledge of the issue among oil companies Oil companies don't have any special ability to predict the future state of a complex system. > So, you'd expect a 2000-dated discourse to be slightly more alarming, yes. Actually, the UN said in 1989 that whole nations might be wiped off the map if we didn't reverse global warming by 2000, so I might expect a 2000-dated discourse to have some humility, considering that the doom prophecy totally failed to materialize. But anyway, how did Gore's predictions fare?
    - Juliate 5y ago
      > Oil companies don't have any special ability to predict the future state of a complex system. No, but they definitely have the scientific knowledge to understand the scale at which they pump CO2 into the atmosphere and the first-order consequences this has. > But anyway, how did Gore's predictions fare? It's like when you fly a plane, never trust the instruments: "yeah, sure, the altimeter is going down, but you know, we're still in the air. Besides, the altimeter has a margin of error, so... we're good." We have a song for that in France: "Tout va très bien, Madame la Marquise, tout va très bien, tout va très bien...".
      - premium-lizard 5y ago
        > No, but they definitely have the scientific knowledge to understand the scale at which they pump CO2 into the atmosphere and the first-order consequences this has. Check your hypothesis. There have been times in the past when CO2 went from, say, 3000 to 4000. Did the global average temperature do what you think it should? > It's like when you fly a plane I'm not seeing a number of correct predictions out of total predictions. What do we usually think when somebody has a hypothesis, and based on that hypothesis they make some testable predictions, and the predictions don't come true?
        scrollaway 5y ago
        You're not seeing correct predictions because you're choosing to look at the worst ones and you're not looking at the more average ones. I've seen dozens of instances of fairly scary predictions from 2000ish which were originally for 2050 and are coming true the last five years. Weather maps predicting scorching heat in France which i remember thinking "there's no way this will ever be that bad", and what do you know, it is that bad. Warnings about floods, glaciers entirely disappearing, heat domes. Warnings about the possibility of methane reservoirs releasing into the atmosphere as permafrost melts. These aren't warnings anymore, they're news stories from the past couple years. Do you somehow believe it's just a coincidence? That it'll get better, we don't need to do anything? Everything about what you're saying is a choice you are making. You are choosing to dismiss evidence. Choosing to adopt an attitude which lets you ignore reality. Choosing to put your fingers in your ears. Choosing to compare events that happen over millennia to events that happen over decades. Make better choices.

premium-lizard 5y ago

> I’m not aware of any system with a track record of predicting climates that far out. This is right. Nor is there going to be any such system. The climate is a complex system, meaning it's fundamentally not amenable to simulation. All the models are toys compared to the reality. None of them even attempt to actually simulate what's going on. Not only is it impossible because we don't even know what the phenomena are, it's extra impossible because there's not enough computational power. I doubt humanity is capable of accurately simulating the sugar in a stirred cup of coffee, much less figuring out what's going to be happening with the atmosphere tomorrow, much less 30 years from now. The models are (unavoidably, necessarily) just toys. They don't predict the future. Anyone who tells you that they are predicting the future with them is malicious or extremely naive. The models just masquerade as science to support political goals.

piva00 5y ago
> The models are (unavoidably, necessarily) just toys. They don't predict the future. Anyone who tells you that they are predicting the future with them is malicious or extremely naive. The models just masquerade as science to support political goals. What political goals? Source would be appreciated as well.
Juliate 5y ago
Yes, not screwing up the biome on which we all depend to live (and countless other species) is definitely a political motive. Is there a problem with that? Don't think so.