“Predicting the future is one of mankind’s oldest dreams.” (Gramelsberger)
Whether the predictions happens through a crystal or through extremely complicated, mathematical computer programs, it seems to be a prediction we have to go easy on and be critical towards.
“Although climate scenarios rely upon the use of numerical models […] and these models have become superstars of a kind, with an increasingly trendsetting influence on our life style, one should ask: What kind of view of the world do these models create?” (Gramelsberger)
When we talk about, and deal with the change of climate, politically as well as and socially, it is never the actual climate, but rather models of climate, we base our action and decision on. In her article, The Strange World of Climate Models, philosopher of computer simulations, Gabriele Gramelsberger explains how these models work, and she questions the simplicity of these averaged simulations lacking the complex mechanisms taking place between the atmosphere and the ‘anthroposphere’.
Can we really use these models as basis for serious action against climate change? Or does their lack of complexity and scale make the nature look more like a fish soup than it portrays the actual nature we live in – the nature that are exist of immeasurable processes and which follows its own unpredictable ways?
Comments
jlksA: SAKJSL