It seems to me there is a difference between doing science (in particular, figuring out the ways in which the physical world works) and making far-future predictions.
When Newton described the law of gravity he did not make far-future predictions about objects falling. He just discovered a law of nature. In the same way, Arrhenius was trying to figure out how the link between atmospheric CO2 and global climate works. It’s just normal science and as such doesn’t offer evidence for or against far-future predictions.
Oh, and by the way, whether global warming has positive or negative net impact critically depends on its magnitude. Minor global warming (up to about 2 degrees C, I believe) is commonly considered beneficial.
When Newton described the law of gravity he did not make far-future predictions about objects falling. He just discovered a law of nature. In the same way, Arrhenius was trying to figure out how the link between atmospheric CO2 and global climate works. It’s just normal science and as such doesn’t offer evidence for or against far-future predictions.
There might be, e.g., economic laws that can be thought of as “science” that have relevance to predicting things related to artificial intelligence.
Oh, and by the way, whether global warming has positive or negative net impact critically depends on its magnitude. Minor global warming (up to about 2 degrees C, I believe) is commonly considered beneficial.
I don’t think economics is relevant—Arrhenius was doing “standard” hard science and not predicting what human societies might or might not do. The laws of economics are quite different from laws of nature.
For positive net impact see e.g. the Stern Review. The main factors are increased agricultural productivity (because of CO2) as well as the reduction in winter heating and winter-related deaths.
I don’t think economics is relevant—Arrhenius was doing “standard” hard science and not predicting what human societies might or might not do. The laws of economics are quite different from laws of nature.
Even so, Arrhenius’s successful prediction still constitutes a weak argument for it being possible to predict the future.
I don’t think anyone is contesting that it’s possible to predict the future.
The real issue here is making good far-future forecasts concerning things (or ideas, patterns, arrangements, etc.) that do not exist yet—and here I don’t think the Arrhenius example provides even a weak argument.
It seems to me there is a difference between doing science (in particular, figuring out the ways in which the physical world works) and making far-future predictions.
When Newton described the law of gravity he did not make far-future predictions about objects falling. He just discovered a law of nature. In the same way, Arrhenius was trying to figure out how the link between atmospheric CO2 and global climate works. It’s just normal science and as such doesn’t offer evidence for or against far-future predictions.
Oh, and by the way, whether global warming has positive or negative net impact critically depends on its magnitude. Minor global warming (up to about 2 degrees C, I believe) is commonly considered beneficial.
There might be, e.g., economic laws that can be thought of as “science” that have relevance to predicting things related to artificial intelligence.
Can you give a reference?
I don’t think economics is relevant—Arrhenius was doing “standard” hard science and not predicting what human societies might or might not do. The laws of economics are quite different from laws of nature.
For positive net impact see e.g. the Stern Review. The main factors are increased agricultural productivity (because of CO2) as well as the reduction in winter heating and winter-related deaths.
Even so, Arrhenius’s successful prediction still constitutes a weak argument for it being possible to predict the future.
I don’t think anyone is contesting that it’s possible to predict the future.
The real issue here is making good far-future forecasts concerning things (or ideas, patterns, arrangements, etc.) that do not exist yet—and here I don’t think the Arrhenius example provides even a weak argument.
As I understand it, it mainly has to do with the speed. Too fast, and plants (and some animals) can’t keep up with their temperature zones.