4 ms·

Actually no we don't. The physical models are scrapped yearly, our predictions are incredibly inaccurate and we can't shake a stick at the to tiny amount of bro

by meaty 14y ago

Actually no we don't. The physical models are scrapped yearly, our predictions are incredibly inaccurate and we can't shake a stick at the to tiny amount of broken data we hold and extrapolate it. Every corporation and politician clamps onto hypothesis' if there is gain to be made, yet theories that result are impossible to challenge. That'snot science. Thatis religion. It's more like we're arrogant blind fundamentalist religious zealots with not much data playing whack-a-mole in the dark and simultaneously fucking everyone in the process.

scarmig 14y ago
The fact that models are constantly refined doesn't mean they're "scrapped." The core model, of CO2 being a greenhouse gas that drives feedbacks--particularly water vapor feedbacks, but others as well--is very well attested to. It's true that climate is complicated and there are significant uncertainties in how they might interact. Most of those uncertainties, however, lie in the positive direction. That's part of the reason why the expected mean warming is much closer to the lower bound than the upper one.
Gravityloss 14y ago
That's not correct. Just to name a few examples, we have quite good data of CO2 concentrations and CO2 infrared behaviour. But what's also strange in your argument, you say that if we know less about the effects, then we should freely change the climate system more. Here's a free online book by Spencer Weart of the history of climate science for anyone who is interested: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm And a blog by Steve Easterbrook about the current state of software in the more complex models: http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/?p=2828 http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/?p=2828 Probably many software-oriented people here might find the latter blog interesting: "We found that the climate models all have very low defect densities compared to well-known, similarly sized open-source projects."

by meaty 14y ago

scarmig 14y ago

The fact that models are constantly refined doesn't mean they're "scrapped." The core model, of CO2 being a greenhouse gas that drives feedbacks--particularly water vapor feedbacks, but others as well--is very well attested to. It's true that climate is complicated and there are significant uncertainties in how they might interact. Most of those uncertainties, however, lie in the positive direction. That's part of the reason why the expected mean warming is much closer to the lower bound than the upper one.

Gravityloss 14y ago

That's not correct. Just to name a few examples, we have quite good data of CO2 concentrations and CO2 infrared behaviour. But what's also strange in your argument, you say that if we know less about the effects, then we should freely change the climate system more. Here's a free online book by Spencer Weart of the history of climate science for anyone who is interested: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm And a blog by Steve Easterbrook about the current state of software in the more complex models: http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/?p=2828 http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/?p=2828 Probably many software-oriented people here might find the latter blog interesting: "We found that the climate models all have very low defect densities compared to well-known, similarly sized open-source projects."