Comment

Comment by pmarreck

Climate science, by its nature, is a multidisciplinary field. It marries the knowledge from oceanography, meteorology, geology, and yes, even astrophysics to some extent—given that solar radiation is a key driver of Earth's climate. However, the core of climate science revolves around Earth's atmospheric processes and how they interact with various terrestrial and oceanic systems.

Astrophysics, on the other hand, is the study of celestial bodies and phenomena occurring far beyond Earth's atmosphere. While it's true that astrophysical phenomena like solar cycles and cosmic radiation can have an effect on Earth's climate, these are often secondary or tertiary influences when compared to more proximate factors like greenhouse gas emissions and albedo changes.

Thus, dismissing climate models as "junk science" for not heavily featuring astrophysics is akin to dismissing the expertise of a cardiac surgeon because they don't also perform neurosurgery.

Lastly, to borrow a Pascal's Wager argument form, what exactly is the cost of being wrong in either case, here? Do you know it? Can you calculate it with any certainty?

Note: Every paragraph but the last one was selected by me from a ChatGPT4 answer regarding this. I strongly believe in the potential of LLM's to massively, and one day hopefully automatically, refute disinformation

parent pmarreck 3 years ago

Discussion

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton