It certainly does hurt the credibility of people saying we need drastic changes now based upon the models. If the answer might change next year, then making a drastic change based upon the current projections seems foolhardy.
FUD. The statement that we need drastic changes is not dependent on the details of the projection and is not based on it. Further, climate models have correctly predicted the heating we have already caused.
We have known the rough level of the climate sensitivity (delta T per doubling CO2) in the current macro state for decades. We have observed it. This science is incredibly settled. We don't know where the tipping elements are and we don't know how the impacts will be distributed.
Questioning the credibility of people calling for action might look like you are being the circumspect and rational one, asking for action proportionate to the evidence. In reality you are endorsing an ignorant position that ignores the evidence we have. If this is not wilful ignorance then please read up on this. The IPCC report summary is a good spot to start. Sceptical Science also often provides good writeups: https://skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm
The fundamental physics that drive the sensitivity are straightforward. Energy balance and water vapour. That gets you a ballpark figure that is confirmed by the last 100 years of emissions.
Individuals, corporations, and the politicians who set policy all operate on imperfect knowledge in many many domains as a routine matter of course.
It is a denier talking point to claim that we just don't know enough, or that the models are always being tweaked and we should just wait until scientists have "the final answer" before doing anything.
Hey, let's stop giving NOAA weather forecasts because they aren't 100% accurate. Let's close down the stock market until everyone can decide what the values should be. Let's disband the military because not all military leaders have the same opinion.
If we are mature enough to recognize that imperfect but credible models are worth acting on in other domains, why do we hold climate change to impossible standards?
They say we need drastic changes based on the best evidence we have along with given the likely outcomes if change isn't introduced.
What you're saying is that you have established a prior that undermines all further evidence presented to you, because it has changed substantially in the past. However, that seems irrational to me.
The answer is going to change every year, with new inputs from the prior year. That is how prediction models work. Using your logic would lead to never making any changes, which I don't think will really help.
Try thinking from a basic Risk Analysis point of view. If climate scientists are wrong and we do something we will invest heavily in infrastructure and efficiency, reduce our environmental impact, and reduce air pollution for our children. If they are right and we do nothing then the 9 to 11 billion of us still living on Earth will be crammed up against the North and South poles while sea level rise claims many small nations. We will run low on arable land, many of our animal and plant species will die, and the planet our children inherit will be a dirty hellscape that’s too hot to live on.
Given that, how could you possibly advocate for doing nothing?
Sadly no, the hypotheses that are now being shown to have been too optimistic were the ones that implied drastic changes. The updated models are telling us something else, you'll figure it out, and/or it will figure you out.
This isn’t really a helpful reply, because of course it’s not a question of magically reducing pollution.
There are two basic modes of reducing pollution. Technological advancement, and conservation.
In the case of technological advancement, you get less pollution per unit of output as the same or lower cost. As long as capital is fairly cheap, these advances tend to propagate quickly through a competitive market.
In the case of conservation, it’s more a question of which groups of people should conserve (i.e. suffer) for this outcome, and by how much.
Certhas|6 years ago
We have known the rough level of the climate sensitivity (delta T per doubling CO2) in the current macro state for decades. We have observed it. This science is incredibly settled. We don't know where the tipping elements are and we don't know how the impacts will be distributed.
Questioning the credibility of people calling for action might look like you are being the circumspect and rational one, asking for action proportionate to the evidence. In reality you are endorsing an ignorant position that ignores the evidence we have. If this is not wilful ignorance then please read up on this. The IPCC report summary is a good spot to start. Sceptical Science also often provides good writeups: https://skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm
The fundamental physics that drive the sensitivity are straightforward. Energy balance and water vapour. That gets you a ballpark figure that is confirmed by the last 100 years of emissions.
unknown|6 years ago
[deleted]
tasty_freeze|6 years ago
It is a denier talking point to claim that we just don't know enough, or that the models are always being tweaked and we should just wait until scientists have "the final answer" before doing anything.
Hey, let's stop giving NOAA weather forecasts because they aren't 100% accurate. Let's close down the stock market until everyone can decide what the values should be. Let's disband the military because not all military leaders have the same opinion.
If we are mature enough to recognize that imperfect but credible models are worth acting on in other domains, why do we hold climate change to impossible standards?
hnhg|6 years ago
What you're saying is that you have established a prior that undermines all further evidence presented to you, because it has changed substantially in the past. However, that seems irrational to me.
take_a_breath|6 years ago
jschwartzi|6 years ago
Given that, how could you possibly advocate for doing nothing?
polotics|6 years ago
lucisferre|6 years ago
zaroth|6 years ago
There are two basic modes of reducing pollution. Technological advancement, and conservation.
In the case of technological advancement, you get less pollution per unit of output as the same or lower cost. As long as capital is fairly cheap, these advances tend to propagate quickly through a competitive market.
In the case of conservation, it’s more a question of which groups of people should conserve (i.e. suffer) for this outcome, and by how much.
Kaiyou|6 years ago
protanopia|6 years ago
[deleted]