Hacker News Reader

Comment by st-keller | Hacker News Reader

If we know of those six tipping-points, how many are there we don‘t know of? How can it be, that we are so careless with a system so volatile?

View on HN

The IPCC et al was intentionally conservative in its predictions because even the conservative estimates suggested it made economic sense to fix the problem.

Like getting shot is bad. If a scientific and economic consensus tells you to put on a Kevlar vest, you do it.

They shouldn't really need to detail all the other things that could go wrong if you get shot, because the conversation should already be over and you should have the vest on, which means even if you do get shot things will probably go better for you and you now have the mental energy to work towards not getting shot.

I think you are mis-reading your parent comment. They are saying we should be humble when it comes to predicting all the things that could happen when manipulating such a complex system as the climate. If our best science is saying there are at least 6 different ways in which we are already causing harm, then it stands to reason there are probably more dangers than that that our science can't yet predict. I think they are saying, let's always assume there are details that we won't understand and act on that basis, i.e. put on the kevlar vest and work towards removing carbon gases from the atmosphere.

I was agreeing with them, just with some more details of why we (sensibly) haven't spent even more effort on cataloging all the terrible impacts of climate change in extreme detail. What we know is bad and convincingly supported enough and bad political actors will seize on anything they can portray as an overreaction.

Because there's no objective, empirically based criteria for a tipping point; all such things are hypotheses which are falsified by the passage of time. I can think of a few in the past 40 years.

That's not to say there aren't 'tipping points' (you certainly can't prove they don't exist.)

Hot nights mean ruined sleep. How long until we need air conditioning at night?

Pretty much the last 40+ years for me.

They are just making them up. At the end of the day there are way to many variables to accurately predict the climate. It's been a lot hotter in the past and a lot colder. I see no reason for the panic.

Some of this is extremely basic physics. Like, white ice reflects solar energy and dark ocean absorbs it. If you don't have faith in science to get that right, you really shouldn't use any tech at all for fear it's too complex for humans to understand.

Science can't get a weather forecast accurate for more than a few days.

What chance have they got about being right about the climate hysteria on a longer term?

Why will a longer term prediction be be more accurate? They have had less chances to go back and amend the models than the short term forecasters.

> If you don't have faith in science to get that right

That's the fundamental point, it's a faith based argument. I want some real world evidence that these absurd predictions are likely to be accurate. That won't happen as it's all based on "models" that have no history of being accurate.

The climate change predictions dating back to the 70s have been remarkably accurate. This has been studied - you are not the first person to ask how accurate these models are.

Bollocks. Various major cities were supposed to be underwater by 2000, then 2020. Sea levels have risen a few millimeters at most.

Or can you dig out some of the ones you have found to be accurate? Here's one that wasn't: https://nypost.com/2020/01/10/the-telling-tale-of-glacier-na...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com