3 ms·

The thing about these models is that they are not necessary if you want to understand the magnitude of change. For example, we can estimate correctly (within t

The thing about these models is that they are not necessary if you want to understand the magnitude of change. For example, we can estimate correctly (within the same order of magnitude) the emissions of CO2 equivalent gases a year that we do as humanity. Then we can estimate correctly (within the same order of magnitude) the CO2 equivalent gases stored in permafrost or ice. [0] Now we can ask a question. What if the ice melts? How many years of 2020 human activity is stored there. It ends up being more than 100 years of 2020 emissions. It does not really take that much modelling to realize that a temperature increase that melts the permafrost can result in completely unpredictable outcomes, that are very probably not positive. That is of course, if one believes in human caused climate change. The amount of CO2 equivalent gases that is emitted by everything else (not humans) is magnitudes more, but obviously it was not a problem for the Earth to handle before. Now, the n-th order effects will increase the rate of warming and will cause new invisible effects. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_emissions

Throwaway197401 5y ago
I am unconvinced by your argument. The models are trying to predict based on various factors, CO2 being one of them. If you were correct all you are really saying is that the models could be much simpler than still be precise. So on that alone it seems like you are missing the point. Second of all, while most agree human activity have some correlation with temperature rise we have no actual idea how much. There is no scientifically demonstrated percentage of the temperature that can be attributed to humans. With regards to the permafrost. This is pure speculation and in many ways relies on the accuracy of the models and doesn't take human ability to deal with it into account. It might be bad it might not, regardless we can't stop living the way we do just because there is some percentage risk of bad outcomes. We should always take the climate seriously but so should we any other event like astroids hitting earth, super vulcanos, nearby super novas, pandemics etc. The world is always and have always been filled with dangers which is why 99.99999% of all species ever existed are extinct way before humans were around.
- knuthsat 5y ago
  I don't care about models. I care about variance. The additive nature of climate change means that there is no variance in the other way. The effect size does not need a model of time for it to be determined worrisome. Permafrost is speculation when it comes to time, not the size of the effect. There's no natural process that will reverse the release of 100 years of 2020 greenhouse emissions in a short amount of time. There's no scientific way to demonstrate that human activity increases the planet's temperature -> therefore no reason to worry, but there's also no scientific way to demonstrate that there are interventions that work to stop the increase -> so no reason to worry? Of course, the question of risk is asked before additive intervention, so in a way, combustion of oil should have never been done in the way it was, similarly raising of livestock (global pandemics), but the way unscientific think -> no data that demonstrates risk -> no risk at all. Then after the risk surfaces, we ask the question "Why should we change the way we live just because we became aware of the risk?". Sounds worrying to me too.
  - Throwaway197401 5y ago
    I don't care about models either exactly because there IS variance and because the climate is a dynamic system. We also know that to be true historically. Climate itself varies over time. So to the extent that permafrost is time specific speculation it's not really useful for anything. The only thing I worry about is to which extent the current hysteria ends up pushing catastrophic political decisions which will kill millions of people not in 80 years but today. Trying to push for alternatives to oil, gas and coal when there is no real contender besides nuclear is going to make everything much more expensive. When everything becomes more expensive it means people can afford less. This will especially hit the poorest. So when faced with that kind of choice I choose. Combustion was done in the way it was because it solved a problem which was much bigger than the ones it created. The problem of how to make combustion engines cleaner is a much better problem to have than coming up with a reliable, clean and plentiful energy resource. You most certainly wouldn't be around and the internet certainly wouldn't if it wasn't for combustion engine freeing up time for humans to focus on other things than just surviving. So again. I am unconvinced by the revisionist historical logic at display here. The world is like it is for a reason the combusting engine have saved many many many many more lives than it's taken.

Throwaway197401 5y ago

I am unconvinced by your argument. The models are trying to predict based on various factors, CO2 being one of them. If you were correct all you are really saying is that the models could be much simpler than still be precise. So on that alone it seems like you are missing the point. Second of all, while most agree human activity have some correlation with temperature rise we have no actual idea how much. There is no scientifically demonstrated percentage of the temperature that can be attributed to humans. With regards to the permafrost. This is pure speculation and in many ways relies on the accuracy of the models and doesn't take human ability to deal with it into account. It might be bad it might not, regardless we can't stop living the way we do just because there is some percentage risk of bad outcomes. We should always take the climate seriously but so should we any other event like astroids hitting earth, super vulcanos, nearby super novas, pandemics etc. The world is always and have always been filled with dangers which is why 99.99999% of all species ever existed are extinct way before humans were around.

knuthsat 5y ago
I don't care about models. I care about variance. The additive nature of climate change means that there is no variance in the other way. The effect size does not need a model of time for it to be determined worrisome. Permafrost is speculation when it comes to time, not the size of the effect. There's no natural process that will reverse the release of 100 years of 2020 greenhouse emissions in a short amount of time. There's no scientific way to demonstrate that human activity increases the planet's temperature -> therefore no reason to worry, but there's also no scientific way to demonstrate that there are interventions that work to stop the increase -> so no reason to worry? Of course, the question of risk is asked before additive intervention, so in a way, combustion of oil should have never been done in the way it was, similarly raising of livestock (global pandemics), but the way unscientific think -> no data that demonstrates risk -> no risk at all. Then after the risk surfaces, we ask the question "Why should we change the way we live just because we became aware of the risk?". Sounds worrying to me too.
- Throwaway197401 5y ago
  I don't care about models either exactly because there IS variance and because the climate is a dynamic system. We also know that to be true historically. Climate itself varies over time. So to the extent that permafrost is time specific speculation it's not really useful for anything. The only thing I worry about is to which extent the current hysteria ends up pushing catastrophic political decisions which will kill millions of people not in 80 years but today. Trying to push for alternatives to oil, gas and coal when there is no real contender besides nuclear is going to make everything much more expensive. When everything becomes more expensive it means people can afford less. This will especially hit the poorest. So when faced with that kind of choice I choose. Combustion was done in the way it was because it solved a problem which was much bigger than the ones it created. The problem of how to make combustion engines cleaner is a much better problem to have than coming up with a reliable, clean and plentiful energy resource. You most certainly wouldn't be around and the internet certainly wouldn't if it wasn't for combustion engine freeing up time for humans to focus on other things than just surviving. So again. I am unconvinced by the revisionist historical logic at display here. The world is like it is for a reason the combusting engine have saved many many many many more lives than it's taken.