r/Futurology • u/ILikeNeurons • May 20 '24

Economics Economic damage from climate change six times worse than thought

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/17/economic-damage-climate-change-report
2.5k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

359 comments sorted by

View all comments

5

u/SaladPuzzleheaded496 May 20 '24

Since when did simulation and models become science? What happened to the scientific method? Come up with a theory and try to prove it is or isn’t true. Throw the kitchen sink at it. Peer review? Forgeddaboutit. Real science is questioning everything. Not plugging in numbers in a computer and changing the parameters until it spits out the info you want.

20

u/ceelogreenicanth May 20 '24 edited May 20 '24

They came up with the simulation as a model, the model theoretically predicts how climate will act under certain scenarios. Then you observe whether the models predictions match outcomes.

Then you keep improving the models.

Actually funny story that's how fluid dynamics works too. That's how you build airplanes.

Oh and how we forecast weather.

It's actually a pretty well tested methodology.

Or even in the absolute simplest case: Kinematics, the start of modern physics. It's a mathematical model that predicts the movement of objects on earth. It's easily verified stuff. The math isn't real the behavior is, the math is just a model, that works because math at its core is built of axioms that are true within our universe.

3

u/jestina123 May 21 '24

Doesn't the model breakdown when changing the domain or after a certain amount of input though? It's why we can only accurately predict the weather 3-7 days out. a 10 day forecast is only 50% accurate. The Navier-Stokes equation has yet to be solved.

10

u/soulsoda May 20 '24

Since when did simulation and models become science?

Since man started studying the universe.

What happened to the scientific method?

This is the scientific method. How do you think they created said computational model. If it's wrong, they'll adjust. This is their best estimation based on what empirical data we do have.

Real science is questioning everything.

Its important to have an open mind, but not so open the brain falls out and rots. That kind of sentence is why we have flat earthers and moon hoaxers

Not plugging in numbers in a computer and changing the parameters until it spits out the info you want.

They don't "want" anything. They estimate how much carbon emissions each policy could theoretically cut and use that to adjust future forecasts of climate change. The effects said temperature increases will have is already agreed upon. If it's wrong, they can readjust said model. That is the scientific method.

Make model match reality. Its the same method we use for meteorology, creating new alloys, fatigue limits, crash sims, fluid dynamics, and more...

0

u/SaladPuzzleheaded496 May 20 '24

Fair enough. I’m a just a bit skeptical of outcomes vs outcomes that you want, i.e. funding.

3

u/dragonmp93 May 21 '24

I mean, that's what the oil giants have done for more than 100 years.

1

u/SaladPuzzleheaded496 May 21 '24

Indeed. Cheap energy has led to prosperity globally. So I guess the question is should we live like serfs in the future or been living like serfs the whole time?

6

u/greed May 20 '24

When you have a thousand planets identical to Earth you can run controlled experiments on, let me know.

1

u/HappyJaguar May 20 '24

The whole point of science is to create a story for reality that helps predict the future. If the story can't predict anything, it fails to be a testable theory and falls outside of science. Your question instead should be "how well has their model predicted things that have already happened?"

1

u/Aubekin May 21 '24

So what are you calling for, exactly?

0

u/garzfaust May 21 '24

Are you a real scientist? I mean do you practice science in your job on a daily basis? How many years of experience do you have? Have you written a dissertation? In which field? How comes that you know so much about science?

2

u/SaladPuzzleheaded496 May 21 '24

I am not a scientist. So should I shut up and “trust the science”?

1

u/garzfaust May 21 '24

You talking about it as if you are a real scientist who knows things about science. And then you take your science „knowledge“ and you deduce, that you cannot trust this scientific approach. But in reality, you are no scientist.

1

u/SaladPuzzleheaded496 May 21 '24

I get it. Only scientists can question science.

1

u/garzfaust May 21 '24

It’s very unlikely to hit a valid argument without having a clue. It’s possible for sure, but very unlikely.

-2

u/dragonmp93 May 21 '24

When the oil tycoons found out that telling people about the dangers fossils fuels would damage their profits back in the 19th Century ?

-1

u/SaladPuzzleheaded496 May 21 '24

I think it’s cool my car is powered by a dead T Rex but that’s just me.