| > The one thing I actually have firsthand experience with is computational complexity. If that's the case then I expect you're well across the Dzhanibekov effect and the fact that the long term arc trajectory of (say) a spinning wingnut can be extremely predictable as its CoG follows the usual equations of motion while its short term tumblings are utterly unpredictable and chaotic. The key point being that the corase climate model is pretty damn simple in terms of basic thermodynamics. Heat from below (core), light from above (sun), energy absorbtion in the sea and land, energy transform to heat, heat radiation outwards, some heat entrapment by insulation. Increased insulation ==> greater heat entrapment, etc. To be sure the fine details of interplay within and between climatic cells are challenging .. but the long term arc of more and more energy being trapped leading to more heat, more storm energy etc is straighfrward enough that it was first done as a back of an envelope calculation more than a century ago. If you're demanding an exact time table on what and where will reach what tempreture when .. then you'll be sorely disapointed. Otherwise its a simple case of we're in the direct path of a massive fully laden train that is ever so slowly derailing. |
If climate science is correct, the one hole I still see is that it doesn’t take into account future improvement in technology, which I think might have some solutions especially when the problem actually threatens an economic player like a 1trillion dollar company. It is basically a choice to believe something good like this can/will happen, so you could call this out as semi religious.
Thank you for engaging with me in the end.