4 ms·

No offense, but internet opinions are a dime a dozen -- do you have some special experience / credentials in this area? The arguments you provide are all just t

No offense, but internet opinions are a dime a dozen -- do you have some special experience / credentials in this area? The arguments you provide are all just the sort of thing that PhD students would study, and incorporate into their models. I'm inclined to believe the experts, but if you _are_ one, and are saying with authority that these effects are missed, that is a much more interesting story.

hendler 8mo ago
The question is not if the commenter is an expert, but if they are correct. The claim that some models didn't take larger systems into account is also because an expert in the arctic wasn't an expert in oceans. And the expert in biodiversity isn't an expert in food supply chains. Expertise isn't the question. Instead it is - do all of us who are non experts (all of us) have enough expert data to have a systemic understanding of an accelerating trend?
- cyanydeez 8mo ago
  On the internet the default pisition is not true/untrue; its, why should I acknowledge you? If you are still trying to gauge truth before this, you are poisoning your mental heuristics. Thats why propaganda are ao effecfive: you can be told something is either, and it can still be effective. Humans and LLMs are similar: the separation between input and commands is not a hard barrier. So, back to GP: CLIMATE CHANGE is reversible. It just depends on whether we are talking about socipecnomics or physical processes.
- pinkmuffinere 8mo ago
  Ya, I agree, but I am not familiar with the intimate details of present climate models, nor am I planning to be. I can't/won't directly evaluate whether the argument they present is correct. But if _they_ are familiar with the intimate details of present climate models (ie, if they are an expert), I will tend to trust them more.
  - sulam 8mo ago
    I’m not a modeler but I have directly asked modelers if clathrates, permafrost melting, wildfire incidence and ocean drawdown responses to warming was incorporated in the major models. 5 years ago the answer was no. Today the answer might be yes, but this is not really the point I’m trying to make. It’s really that we should expect to see acceleration in warming as the natural environment responds to anthropogenic (“forced”) climate change.
    - mlyle 8mo ago
      The models don't consider these because there's considerable uncertainty as to the size of these effects and potential countervailing forces of similar magnitudes. The fact is, for all of these other secondary effects etc... we just don't know. It's too complicated of a system. So as a result, we've got a prediction of something between "somewhat bad" and "catastrophically-is-an-understatement bad" with a maximum likelihood estimate of "really really bad."
      - sulam 8mo ago
        And yet we can still say something simple that is true: warming will accelerate due to non-human greenhouse gas emissions as the planet continues to warm, due to feedback loops and tipping points in the natural carbon cycle. This is an unassailable statement.
        mlyle 8mo ago
        > This is an unassailable statement. No. I believe what you're saying is very likely to be true, but we know there's both positive and negative feedback and we don't really know how they really will interplay and where all the tipping points are. There may even be significant phase delay in these mechanisms and so we could even get oscillation.
        sulam 8mo ago
        Over time periods in excess of 10K years this is a reasonable caveat. For more human-oriented timelines, there's no negative feedback mechanism I'm aware of that would do anything close to producing an actual oscillation. Edit: I'd be happy for you to educate me how I'm wrong btw, since that would mean I've missed something significant, which would make me happy! So please do tell me if you know of such a mechanism.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
sulam 8mo ago
2 years ago this was hard won knowledge, searching for papers and then putting it all together in survey form for analysis. Today I can tell you: feel free to ask Deep Research or another LLM you trust to do that work for you, generating citations along the way. You can convince yourself vs me having to convince you. It will take about 15 minutes.
- pinkmuffinere 8mo ago
  For better or worse, I don't trust an LLM to give me a correct answer in this space. But you've kindof dodged the question by recommending LLM's -- do you have special experience / credentials in this area?
  - Yhippa 8mo ago
    If they said yes, would you blindly trust them? They told you to "do your own research" effectively and you punted. That would arguably be a more reassuring path for you I assume.
    - pinkmuffinere 8mo ago
      Truthfully, because they dodged the question I am now a bit suspicious of everything they say. It just seems a bit deceitful. I explicitly called out the dodging not because I wanted to hear from them after they'd dodged it, but because I want to make it clear to GP that their answer is not sufficient, and highlight to others that they maybe shouldn't trust GP. If they had answered my first question in the affirmative (something like "I am a researcher at X institute on this topic"), ya, I think I would have trusted them.
      - sulam 8mo ago
        I don’t type fast on my phone, so you’re getting responses as I can give them. I think I’ve answered your questions sufficiently to draw your own conclusions at this point. Feel free to ignore me. Physics doesn’t care.
  - 8mo ago
nostrebored 8mo ago
Surely the children churning out papers in a memey field, with no real special insight into computational modeling, are the real ones to trust! Their papers are in Nature! Ridiculous take, and you’d know that the OP was correct if you cared enough to know what researchers were actually saying. Climate arguments devolve into appeals to impact claimed by authorities rather than any examination of what they’ve said.
transcriptase 8mo ago
Would a PhD student incorporate something into their model that flipped their results from agreeing to disagreeing with the premise that has not only practically become a religion, but forms the foundation for more and more funding flowing into their field each year? Would they really want to risk being basically excommunicated from their area of research for daring to provide ammo to “climate change deniers”?
- m4x 8mo ago
  This is rather disingenuous. It can be hard to overcome momentum in research, but most researchers would be giddy with excitement if they could show our (extremely disturbing) forecasts regarding climate change are wrong and that things are much rosier than expected. I also suspect you would find easy funding from existing climate change deniers. There is no shortage of well-heeled folk in that space. Do you have a chip on your shoulder regarding research? You're begging the question by stating it is conducted in a "practically religious" way. Ask whether that's true before you question the effect it would have on somebody's behaviour.

hendler 8mo ago

The question is not if the commenter is an expert, but if they are correct. The claim that some models didn't take larger systems into account is also because an expert in the arctic wasn't an expert in oceans. And the expert in biodiversity isn't an expert in food supply chains. Expertise isn't the question. Instead it is - do all of us who are non experts (all of us) have enough expert data to have a systemic understanding of an accelerating trend?

cyanydeez 8mo ago
On the internet the default pisition is not true/untrue; its, why should I acknowledge you? If you are still trying to gauge truth before this, you are poisoning your mental heuristics. Thats why propaganda are ao effecfive: you can be told something is either, and it can still be effective. Humans and LLMs are similar: the separation between input and commands is not a hard barrier. So, back to GP: CLIMATE CHANGE is reversible. It just depends on whether we are talking about socipecnomics or physical processes.
pinkmuffinere 8mo ago
Ya, I agree, but I am not familiar with the intimate details of present climate models, nor am I planning to be. I can't/won't directly evaluate whether the argument they present is correct. But if _they_ are familiar with the intimate details of present climate models (ie, if they are an expert), I will tend to trust them more.
- sulam 8mo ago
  I’m not a modeler but I have directly asked modelers if clathrates, permafrost melting, wildfire incidence and ocean drawdown responses to warming was incorporated in the major models. 5 years ago the answer was no. Today the answer might be yes, but this is not really the point I’m trying to make. It’s really that we should expect to see acceleration in warming as the natural environment responds to anthropogenic (“forced”) climate change.
  - mlyle 8mo ago
    The models don't consider these because there's considerable uncertainty as to the size of these effects and potential countervailing forces of similar magnitudes. The fact is, for all of these other secondary effects etc... we just don't know. It's too complicated of a system. So as a result, we've got a prediction of something between "somewhat bad" and "catastrophically-is-an-understatement bad" with a maximum likelihood estimate of "really really bad."
    - sulam 8mo ago
      And yet we can still say something simple that is true: warming will accelerate due to non-human greenhouse gas emissions as the planet continues to warm, due to feedback loops and tipping points in the natural carbon cycle. This is an unassailable statement.
      - mlyle 8mo ago
        > This is an unassailable statement. No. I believe what you're saying is very likely to be true, but we know there's both positive and negative feedback and we don't really know how they really will interplay and where all the tipping points are. There may even be significant phase delay in these mechanisms and so we could even get oscillation.
        sulam 8mo ago
        Over time periods in excess of 10K years this is a reasonable caveat. For more human-oriented timelines, there's no negative feedback mechanism I'm aware of that would do anything close to producing an actual oscillation. Edit: I'd be happy for you to educate me how I'm wrong btw, since that would mean I've missed something significant, which would make me happy! So please do tell me if you know of such a mechanism.
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]

sulam 8mo ago

2 years ago this was hard won knowledge, searching for papers and then putting it all together in survey form for analysis. Today I can tell you: feel free to ask Deep Research or another LLM you trust to do that work for you, generating citations along the way. You can convince yourself vs me having to convince you. It will take about 15 minutes.

pinkmuffinere 8mo ago
For better or worse, I don't trust an LLM to give me a correct answer in this space. But you've kindof dodged the question by recommending LLM's -- do you have special experience / credentials in this area?
- Yhippa 8mo ago
  If they said yes, would you blindly trust them? They told you to "do your own research" effectively and you punted. That would arguably be a more reassuring path for you I assume.
  - pinkmuffinere 8mo ago
    Truthfully, because they dodged the question I am now a bit suspicious of everything they say. It just seems a bit deceitful. I explicitly called out the dodging not because I wanted to hear from them after they'd dodged it, but because I want to make it clear to GP that their answer is not sufficient, and highlight to others that they maybe shouldn't trust GP. If they had answered my first question in the affirmative (something like "I am a researcher at X institute on this topic"), ya, I think I would have trusted them.
    - sulam 8mo ago
      I don’t type fast on my phone, so you’re getting responses as I can give them. I think I’ve answered your questions sufficiently to draw your own conclusions at this point. Feel free to ignore me. Physics doesn’t care.
- 8mo ago

nostrebored 8mo ago

Surely the children churning out papers in a memey field, with no real special insight into computational modeling, are the real ones to trust! Their papers are in Nature! Ridiculous take, and you’d know that the OP was correct if you cared enough to know what researchers were actually saying. Climate arguments devolve into appeals to impact claimed by authorities rather than any examination of what they’ve said.

transcriptase 8mo ago

Would a PhD student incorporate something into their model that flipped their results from agreeing to disagreeing with the premise that has not only practically become a religion, but forms the foundation for more and more funding flowing into their field each year? Would they really want to risk being basically excommunicated from their area of research for daring to provide ammo to “climate change deniers”?

m4x 8mo ago
This is rather disingenuous. It can be hard to overcome momentum in research, but most researchers would be giddy with excitement if they could show our (extremely disturbing) forecasts regarding climate change are wrong and that things are much rosier than expected. I also suspect you would find easy funding from existing climate change deniers. There is no shortage of well-heeled folk in that space. Do you have a chip on your shoulder regarding research? You're begging the question by stating it is conducted in a "practically religious" way. Ask whether that's true before you question the effect it would have on somebody's behaviour.