Einherjar86
Active Member
I don't see the ACE as being an "immediate observation". That's what appeals to Harvey and Irma are. Computer models, like economic models, are based on inputs, which have various biases, as well as not being able to account for an infinite amount of unknown contingencies. Even if we expect some intergenerational increases in the next however many generations, that in no way means that we can simply infer anthropogenically driven increases, nor can we infer the lack of any sort of countermechanisms, counter black swans, or even black swans which accelerate warming (like increased sun activity), or simple longterm natural variance in complex systems.
I should reiterate I'm a staunch believer in climate change, for the simple fact that the alternative is climate stasis, the idea of which is empirically laughable. What that change will look like, and what drives it, is not even remotely settled, and is most likely measured in terms of variance rather than increase/decrease.
You're confusing the arguments of multiple links. The Slate piece was simply putting forth whether Harvey and Irma would provide an immediately observable connection (i.e. narrative) that could inspire a shift in belief in those people who refuse to acknowledge the unobservable complexity of climate change.
The following links are attempts to catalogue the statistics, supportive or otherwise, that give rise to a speculative concept of the future of climate change.
Well, it's not only not observable, but wouldn't we expect such liklihoods based purely on normal variance/volatility?
Are you saying this is your opinion, or a popular opinion?
"51% chance things will be different in the coming century in some places than they were, but overall no major changes." Man, talk about hedging the hedge. I could give you the same line on the forecast for Massachusetts next week and how much more actionable knowledge would you have? Furthermore, it's probably impossible for me to be wrong. Tons of time + vague prediction + 51% odds. Significance = 0.
Climate science isn't about being right. It's about trying to be prepared.
This is in direct contradiction to your previous link.
No it's not. They're specifying different things.
The former link says that increased hurricane activity could be linked to higher sea temperatures. Localized temperature increases can be caused, the article suggests, by increased emissions along with several other factors. It doesn't make the unequivocal claim that increased emissions = Harvey + Irma.
The second simply says it's premature to say unequivocally that human-induced emissions cause more cyclone activity.
Last edited: