Dire predictions and the uncertainty of the evidence
Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2021 4:35 pm
Ondrej wrote:All dire predictions are based on climate models being projected into the future and which everyone admits are fraught with uncertainty. For example ocean currents, solar variation, cloud cover and many more, currently are not modelled because of the difficulties. This casts significant doubt as to their accuracy despite that they are the best we have. Proponents of the models will say they are the cutting edge science (true) and therefore should be trusted (maybe), detractors will point out the shortcomings (also true) and say they are not to be trusted (maybe).
Barney wrote:Where did you learn this? My friends who are into climate change insist that ocean currents are being modelled.
Ondrej wrote:This is probably true to some degree in that stable ocean currents exist and therefore can be modeled to some extent. But my understanding is that ocean currents are also chaotic (technically speaking, as in "chaos theory") and therefore are inherently not predictable (at least not for the time scales we are interested in). This is also the reason we cannot predict the weather very well, a few days at best, but extending out into years or centuries is meaningless.
Barney wrote:This article seems to claim that the predictions are proven to be pretty accurate based on what the past predicted about the present: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/stud ... ons-right/