By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sundin13 on 17 July 2020
Edit Thread
SpokenTruth said:
0D0 said:

hahaha, I don't want scientific truth. hohoho how monkey I am, right?

Yesterday's scientific model is old today.

Today's scientific model will be old tomorrow.

There are exemples of science of yesterday that is wrong today.

Science of today might be wrong tomorrow.

In 10 years, I'll be here on this topic pointing out that this piece of news didn't materialize. And you will be here saying that I'm talking about old scientific models and journalistic manipulation. That's because YOU, my dear, just want whatever truth you want. :D :D :D :D

Faulty logic.  The inaccuracies of a previous projection are not an indication that future projections must also be inaccurate.

If that were the case, I conclude that everything you say from now on is wrong simply because you're wrong now.

Many projections and models from the past were actually quite good, and demonstrate that the core science was well understood even 30-40 years ago. While we have certainly improved in our understanding, we shouldn't just write off the past due to a few bad predictions (and again, it is important to put those predictions in context with the overall scope of scientific understanding). Additionally, it is worth remembering that models not only have to predict the science, but human behavior. For obvious reasons, old models did not factor in the impact of the fall of the Soviet Union or the rise of China in their estimations regarding CO2 output. There are also unpredictable natural phenomena such as volcanic eruptions which can skew the results in unpredictable ways.

That said, lets look at some old models:

This one was from NASA Scientists in 1981 and showed a very slight underestimate of global temperatures, but overall came pretty close to nailing it.

This was from the very first IPCC report in 1990, and similarly showed a pretty good projection of upcoming temperatures, with only a slight overestimate around 2010 that has largely been erased.

Climate science has largely been a process of refinement. It is taking a solid, core understanding of climate change and introducing a large number of other small tweaks and variables. These do affect models and show inaccuracies in our old understanding, but at least over the past several decades, they are a series of small shifts, not foundational changes. Every once in a while someone jumps up and says "wait, I think we were wrong". Those are typically the "doomsday predictions" we see. They are people claiming that the core science is incorrect. The fact that they are wrong shouldn't be used against the core science. If anything, they strengthen it.