Climate Models Are Running Red Hot, and Scientists Don't Know Why (bloomberg.com) 445
The simulators used to forecast warming have suddenly started giving us less time. From a report: There are dozens of climate models, and for decades they've agreed on what it would take to heat the planet by about 3 Celsius. It's an outcome that would be disastrous -- flooded cities, agricultural failures, deadly heat -- but there's been a grim steadiness in the consensus among these complicated climate simulations. Then last year, unnoticed in plain view, some of the models started running very hot. The scientists who hone these systems used the same assumptions about greenhouse-gas emissions as before and came back with far worse outcomes. Some produced projections in excess of 5C, a nightmare scenario.
The scientists involved couldn't agree on why -- or if the results should be trusted. Climatologists began "talking to each other like, 'What'd you get?', 'What'd you get?'" said Andrew Gettelman, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, which builds a high-profile climate model. "The question is whether they've overshot," said Mark Zelinka, staff scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Researchers are starting to put together answers, a task that will take months at best, and there's not yet agreement on how to interpret the hotter results. The reason for worry is that these same models have successfully projected global warming for a half century. Their output continues to frame all major scientific, policy and private-sector climate goals and debates, including the sixth encyclopedic assessment by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change due out next year. If the same amount of climate pollution will bring faster warming than previously thought, humanity would have less time to avoid the worst impacts.
The scientists involved couldn't agree on why -- or if the results should be trusted. Climatologists began "talking to each other like, 'What'd you get?', 'What'd you get?'" said Andrew Gettelman, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, which builds a high-profile climate model. "The question is whether they've overshot," said Mark Zelinka, staff scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Researchers are starting to put together answers, a task that will take months at best, and there's not yet agreement on how to interpret the hotter results. The reason for worry is that these same models have successfully projected global warming for a half century. Their output continues to frame all major scientific, policy and private-sector climate goals and debates, including the sixth encyclopedic assessment by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change due out next year. If the same amount of climate pollution will bring faster warming than previously thought, humanity would have less time to avoid the worst impacts.
It already too late (Score:3)
Once the ice melt faster it's accumulate, it's just too late
Re: It already too late (Score:2, Funny)
Re: It already too late (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: It already too late (Score:5, Interesting)
Problem with this is NOT the poles. It is the equator. That same conveyor that warms the poles, also cools the equators. Not certain what would happen if the conveyors stop.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep. That's the correct answer here.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Problem solved, scientist are stump, a random post on Slashdot solved the problem.
Now to the point, is the model working, and we are just on a path to disaster, or does the model need adjusting.
Despite the Conservative Conspiracy theories. The scientist want to show an accurate model, not a fear mongering Doom and Gloom one. If there is a really bad message, they really need to make sure everything is correctly accounted for.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A fear mongering doom and gloom model will get them more money.
Re: (Score:3)
So who wins?
(My personal take is that people who accuse others they don't know of something mainly use the motives that would sway themselves. So people accusing others for being only in there for the money are people who are mainly motivated by money.)
Re:It already too late (Score:5, Insightful)
And continuing to deny the problem will get the shitiest people on earth more money. I'll listen to the scientists who are not making billions a year by vomiting filth into the sky.
Re:It already too late (Score:4, Informative)
All this was known years ago, I saw a lecture in university called, "The greatest failing of the human race is its inability to understand the consequences of exponential growth." ~ Dr. Albert A. Bartlett, Professor Emeritus, Department of Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder. See https://www.youtube.com/watch [youtube.com]?... [youtube.com]
One of the best lectures and explanations ever, and a clear foundational understanding well conveyed by a respected academic. Highly recommended! This guy was talking about sustainability since the fifties. I'm always amazed at how this guy nailed it and no one ever seems to understand the basic concepts discussed by Dr. Bartlett.
In a nutshell, he says there must be an end to the rates of growth we've seen since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Personally, I suspect we are actually at the end of the industrial age, and a new type of economy is need to move forward. I expect this will happen after this system collapses underneath the weight of the greedy.
Re: (Score:3)
if it doesn't fit, you must... (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Richard P. Feynman
Re:if it doesn't fit, you must... (Score:5, Insightful)
From the summary:
The reason for worry is that these same models have successfully projected global warming for a half century.
The "experiment" used to test a model is whether it can predict an outcome. The models under discussion have passed that test. And now, some of them are predicting much hotter temperature-increases in the future. And some are predicting smaller increases, but increases nonetheless. Finding out why the models disagree is a useful exercise that will lead to their improvement. But one common prediction remains: temperatures will rise unless we act.
Re:if it doesn't fit, you must... (Score:5, Informative)
I'd love to see the model that's been used for "a half century". I'm calling bullshit until then.
Your wish is granted. https://www.forbes.com/sites/s... [forbes.com]
Re:if it doesn't fit, you must... (Score:4, Informative)
I'd love to see the model that's been used for "a half century". I'm calling bullshit until then.
The article references an interesting AGU review article [wiley.com] that examines models from the 1970s to the 200os. Sorry, it's paywalled, but the point is models published up to half a century ago have indeed been evauated and have shown to be successful.
Also, how does a model's answer suddenly change, and be correct for a half century...didn't it ever change before? Or did they just tweak it along the way to get the right answer?
It's explained in the original article. As new data comes in, they update the model parameters so that the model predicts the new data more accurately. As you gather more and more data, your model becomes better and better at predicting future data before it arrives. That's not fudging. That's how predictive algorithms work. See Kalman filters, for example.
Re:if it doesn't fit, you must... (Score:5, Informative)
The models originated in the late '60-early '70s, and worked fairly well from the beginning. I think what they actually meant is that they can take today's highly refined models, plug data from 50 years ago into it, and get the correct historical result. The do the same thing with parameters for Venus, Mars, and Titan and the models work there as well. It seems unlikely to me that today's data has suddenly corrupted them, especially since the data being fed in is getting increasingly accurate and from more locations than ever before.
Re:if it doesn't fit, you must... (Score:4, Insightful)
Summer 2019 was one of the coolest summers in 20 years. Get the hard data for yourself and see how much you are being lied to.
So I did, and it turns out you're just another A/C troll.
Here is some actual data [noaa.gov]
The year 2019 was the second warmest year in the 140-year record, with a global land and ocean surface temperature departure from average of +0.95C (+1.71F).
The five warmest years in the 1880–2019 record have all occurred since 2015, while nine of the 10 warmest years have occurred since 2005. The year 1998 currently ranks as the 10 warmest year on record. The year 2019 marks the 43rd consecutive year (since 1977) with global land and ocean temperatures, at least nominally, above the 20th century average.
ever heard of a runaway process (Score:2, Insightful)
well, global warming, fueled by greed, is one of them, so much for the future, in fact, I bet this is why there are no signs of intelligent life out there, they all stupidly cooked themselves to extinction, just like we are
Re: ever heard of a runaway process (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: ever heard of a runaway process (Score:5, Insightful)
Life isn't in danger. Neither is the human species. Our civilization is considerably more fragile.
Re:ever heard of a runaway process (Score:5, Insightful)
Capitalism, what joke, this isn't capitalism, if it was "the people" would have access to "capital" instead, all the "capital" is "owned" by the upper class. There is no free enterprise, everything is taxed. Most of what you think you believe is evidently just lies told to you to keep you in economic slavery. The owners have a real interest in maintaining their control over the system and convincing people that the system is fair and honest when clearly, it isn't. Most wealth is transferred and not earned, most people never manage to change their economic class. The evidence is quite clear, the rich are getting rich, the rest of us are getting poorer and the gap between the two is growing.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazet... [harvard.edu]
The obvious truth is our society is becoming more corrupt and is heading for an economic collapse due to the unsustainable top heavy upper class, thier insatiable greed and the corruption that ensures from it.
Re: ever heard of a runaway process (Score:2, Funny)
Re: ever heard of a runaway process (Score:5, Informative)
Are you aware that socialism and communism are different things?
The key difference is with communism, we all must do what the government says for the good of the community Vs the government must do what we say for the good of the community.
Communism: Every Citizen needs per week 2 loves of bread, 2 Kilo of meat, 1 gallon of Milk, 14 servings of vegetables. To keep shipping of food efficient we will only ship bread on Monday, Meat on Tuesday and Thursday, Milk on Wednesday, and Vegetables on Friday.
Socialism: The population should have a balanced diet. So vouchers for food are given to people who are unable to purchase a healthy diet. In which they can pick what they want and when they want. Market demand will determine what foods will be delivered and when. Stores will normally want to keep a good stock to meet demand.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How is that Socialism voucher working out for you in Venezuela ??
Re: (Score:3)
Are you aware that socialism and communism are different things?
One more thing to add. No one really cares what communism is, not even the communists themselves. To conservatives, communism is just a bogeyman to stir up the base. To communists, communism is just an arbitrary ideology to control the masses. In both cases, the actual definition doesn't matter.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not really, in the END the result is the same. Karl Marx' vision always leads to USSR-style communism. The experiments with socialism and communism over the last century have more than proven that, both at small and at large scale, no socialist/communist system has led to the massive empowerment of the poor.
But it's always "implemented badly", even if you for an instance agree with the notion that you do not have the natural right to the fruits of your labor, the notion that "we all must do what the governm
you're not communicating [Re:can't agree...] (Score:4, Insightful)
Not really, in the END the result is the same. Karl Marx' vision always leads to USSR-style communism.
You are proving my point. I said:
And the definition of socialism as used by "progressives" is different from the definition used by economists, which is in turn different from the definition used by conservatives.
You are using your definition of socialism, which seems to be "Marxism".
If you ask a "progressive" to name a socialist country, they will mention "Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Belgium..."
Guess what: none of these have had forced labor camps nor "has led to the massive empowerment of the poor."
But, since you use the same word to mean something different from their use of the word, you're not communicating. You're not even talking about the same thing.
Re: (Score:3)
You forgot the USA.
Re:can't agree on definitions (Score:5, Informative)
Ask them whether they're socialist. They're all capitalist countries, with social programs. Socialist is not 'free healthcare', socialism advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Re: (Score:3)
Ask them whether they're socialist. They're all capitalist countries, with social programs. Socialist is not 'free healthcare', socialism advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
or socialist countries with a regulated market economy ... these countries work because they put social systems in charge of economic ones, unlike the US which has it ass backwards
Re: (Score:3)
By some definitions. The problem is that the definition used by conservatives and progressives are very different.
Re:ever heard of a runaway process (Score:5, Informative)
Hmm, you're the one that brought up communism, me thinks it's just a straw man argument that you're putting up to obstifacte the point the original post was making. Why is it every time someone criticizes the current system, so people have to bring up communism, like it's either one or the other?
Economic fundamentalism rears it's ugly head. First off, there is no real communism on a large scale, these are depotic tyrannies cloaking themselves in communist philosophies in order to justify their oppression. just like your economic masters cloak themselves in democratic cloaks to disguise their economic oppression. Oh, and as far as communism goes, ever heard of the Kibbutz communal system? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Small scale communal living has being happening successfully since the dawn of civilization. All you believe seems to exist to justify individual selfishness and personal greed.
Clearly both US parties are owned and controlled by the upper class as is Washington in general, which is no different than most other countries in the so called "free world". Actually, it's a carefully controlled "fee" world we live in. We pay dearly for the privileges they allow us. This is freedom? This is free enterprise? Bullshit I say.
People need to grow and stop pretending that everything is fine just because they have a lot of toys.
Re: ever heard of a runaway process (Score:2)
Absolutely false assertion, all communist systems fail and put their people in starvation. China adopted a hybrid capitalism to save itself and depends on capitalism for customers too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: ever heard of a runaway process (Score:4, Informative)
Russia abandoned communism 30 years ago. Your middle-school teachers should be fired.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike what most leftists think,the amount of taxes you pay does not affect the weather.
Re: ever heard of a runaway process (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Market solution (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're being sarcastic over a strawman:
People are not proposing global communism as the solution to global warming.
That's a strawman.
Some people are proposing taxes on carbon dioxide emission as an approach to reduce global warming, is that what you're thinking? That is not a communist approach; that is explicitly a free-market approach: if people are charged for the cost of the damages caused by their emissions, and then the market will efficiently decide which emissions are worthwhile, and which not.
If you have a better solution, why don't you propose it, rather than shoot at straw men?
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
Laughable. Re:Market solution (Score:4, Informative)
What you're proposing is in itself a straw-man.
Even if what you say is true (which evidence is lacking, NYC should've been submerged by now according to predictions a decade ago)
I'm used to deniers being wrong, but you aren't bothering to even try to sound plausible. You're saying that the predictions from 2009 said New York would be "submerged" by 2020?! Bullshit. That's not even wrong, it's laughable.
The predictions from then were for sea level rise of 0.2 to 0.3 meters by 2100.
(reference: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/asset... [www.ipcc.ch] table 10.7)
Re: Oh, yeah. (Score:3)
You mean the U.S. presidency has only been around for a few years, because it keeps changing hands?
Re: (Score:2)
China is not a communist country, it's a capitalist utopia.
Unnoticed in plain view (Score:5, Insightful)
"Then last year, unnoticed in plain view, some of the models started running very hot."
How would the models unexpected output go "unnoticed"? That is literally the only reason these models are run. What were the scientists doing? Watching Game of Thrones?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Until you make it to the final season and realize you've wasted all this time for *nothing*.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Um, totally not my point. I am asking WHY DID IT GO UNNOTICED? That is literally their most important job. Did they go on a coke binge?
Re: (Score:3)
While they don't understand why the models are running hot yet, it is entirely inaccurate to say it is unnoticed..
"The scientists involved couldn’t agree on why—or if the results should be trusted. Climatologists began “talking to each other like, ‘What’d you get?’, ‘What’d you get?’” said Andrew Gettelman, a senior scienti
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah...good point.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the thing: the models have been very accurate thus far... and have also been used to predict future temperature trends. And suddenly, they are predicting a much faster rise in temperature? Does not compute... if a model is suddenly giving you different results, then the model has changed, or ...
Correct. What is being discussed are new models.
It's easy not to notice. (Score:3)
Because a single run of a model is in itself meaningless. You run the model many, many times to produce a probability distribution, e.g., if CO2 goes up to X ppm, temperature will rise by Y degrees +/- Z with a 90% confidence.
Imagine your job involves flipping a fair coin several times a day. One day you get four heads in a row. You think nothing of it because that's not really unusual; it happens on about 6% of days. You mention this to your coworkers and soon you realize that *everybody's* been getting
Spoiler: Its the clouds (Score:5, Informative)
For those too lazy to read the article:
According to the last paragraph, the higher predictions temperature are due updates to the climate models to better simulate clouds.
Not News. Models were overshooting 10 years ago (Score:3, Informative)
Ten years ago it was thought the glaciers would be gone from Glacier National Park in Montana by now. And in spite of having record breaking warm years since then, the glaciers are still there...
https://www.thenewstribune.com... [thenewstribune.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Ten years ago it was thought the glaciers would be gone from Glacier National Park in Montana by now.
I don't think that I'd call the sign painters in Glacier National Park "climate modelers".
Unless you can show a source for where they get their information, this really isn't relevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All scientific predictions undermine themselves when the test subjects react to the results. If the doctor says you are going to die next year and helps you out (even just informing you) then the experiment has been ruined as the theory (projection) can not be tested. You take active measures which invalidates the predictive model.
It's like saying humans do not exist because of the 100s of extinct species we found fossels for!
Science works with many theories being tested. Most get tested false and that dat
Re:Not News. Models were overshooting 10 years ag (Score:4, Interesting)
According to climate activists and political talking heads, capitalism is evil, we've never done anything about it because the rich, we're killing everyone and we'll all be dead in 10 years.
This is why it is so hard to have a discussion. The idiots make inflammatory shit up, and then apparently believe the shit they make up.
Nobody is predicting we'll all be dead in 10 years. That's not merely a strawman, it's an absurd strawman, and making absurd claims about what people you disagree with didn't ever say is a prime reason that the discussion is derailed.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet the Arctic continues its meltdown. Himalayan glaciers are retreating. Alpine glaciers are retreating. Greenland is melting. Wonders never cease.
I did some looking into the 2020 thing. (Score:5, Informative)
That year turns out not to have come from models at all.
There is a widely cited paper from 2003 which predicts that glaciers in the park will probably be gone by 2030, if CO2 also doubles by then. Subsequent measurements showed that the remaining glacier area was considerably smaller than previously believed, causing the NPS officials *by the seat of their pants* guess that the glaciers might be gone as early as 2020.
That's not really scientifically valid. There used to be 35 glaciers in the park, of which 9 have already disappeared. On average the remaining glaciers have lost 39% of their area, but this average doesn't tell you anything about when glaciers will be *gone*. Glaciers will only be gone when the very last, *most refractory glacier* is gone. That might be the tiny 5 acre Gem Glacier, which has only lost 9% of its area.
When the park service realized its error it corrected the signs, which of course ignited a number of denialist conspiracy theories. Anyhow, this all traces back to a single paper, which tells you very little about climate models per se because it brings in a second, complex dynamic system: land ice.
Re: (Score:3)
That was based on models of glacier behaviour, not climate models. Turns out, glaciers are more complicated than they thought. It doesn't speak to the accuracy of climate models.
Guess we're on Double-Secret Probation (Score:2, Funny)
"Hey, our models that predicted disaster are predicting ULTRA disaster now!"
All models are wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
All models are wrong. Some models are useful.
Which is why, when we study various fixes for the 'climate problem' they all need to be reversible. Both on a meteorological/physics level as well as a socio-economic one. Odds are that the fixes we choose today will be wrong or need some adjustment.
Modeling feedback loops (Score:3)
Modeling feedback loops is really hard without a fundamentally sound theory of the inputs to that process. Climate is chaotic, so we don't know what the inputs are year to year, even though these inputs can have a major effect on the output through feedback loops.
On the other hand nature tends towards feedback loops mediated by other (sometimes misunderstood) processes. So a mathematical or computer model of a natural feedback loop is likely to generate extreme results that are less extreme in nature.
It's very easy to throw computation at a problem like this to come up with new models. And the models might even - through raw number crunching - come up with something that looks right for a while. And then it doesn't.
Re:good grief people (Score:4, Informative)
"Climate models have been doing a fine job projecting warming for a long time. A recent study compared models as old as 1970 with observations made in the decades since. Some models warmed up too much, and some too little, but 14 of 17 past projections turned out to be consistent with the measured path of global average temperatures. “Particularly impressive” were models from the 1970s because there wasn’t much observable evidence for warming at that time."
What this article is about is that the newer models are giving higher results than older ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Understanding the science is not related to if the science is true or false, accurate or inaccurate. Understanding it is completely different.
Re:good grief people (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
OK never mind. I give up. You win.
Re: (Score:2)
I see, so you have inside knowledge on how these climate models are put together and the data they are fed. Stop holding back, lay it on us, we can handle the details. Since it is just basic math, please include that in your explanation as well. Most of us here know basic math.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. I do. Climate models are just basic differential equations and usually based on fluid dynamics. They aren't magic. Changing the input has massive effects on the output. When I mean "basic math" I mean "basic to people who know math".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What "knowledge"? What do YOU think climate models are based on? Magic? You probably do. You sound like you are anti-science. And no, climate change is real and is caused by humans. And no, it is not religion, but based on science.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yes, and nothing like people who adjust their assumptions and fill in incomplete knowledge to fit their world view. Sorry buddy, but based on how much science has done for us vs the people who need to assume everyone who publishes things they disagree with must be corrupt or incompetent, I'll go with team scientist.
Re: (Score:2)
Literally anyone can call themselves a "scientist" and there are plenty of scientists that are absolute frauds. And yes, climate change is real and is mostly caused by humans. But no, don't just listen to someone because they call themselves a scientist.
Models pretty good so far [Re:good grief people] (Score:5, Informative)
That is because they adjust the parameters and data to fit the output they want to see.
No. Read the references I linked. The articles are about how well the models predicted the temperature in the future. You can't "adjust" the models to fit the data in the future.
The oldest of the models, Manabe and Wetherald 1967, has over fifty years of predictions now. And, you know what? Turns out it still looks pretty good. https://www.forbes.com/sites/s... [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect. These models were remade and were run with new data. They aren't literally copying the code from the 1960s mainframes. And yes, climate change is real and is mostly caused by humans.
Re: (Score:2)
You are right. My mistake. The models were (re)run on the original 1960s mainframes. Guess what? I am not "arguing". Stop making everything a religion.
Re: Models pretty good so far [Re:good grief peopl (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If that were true what are they trying to achieve by fixing the outcome?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you win. Did you go to church today? You might as well.
Models have been good, so far (Score:5, Informative)
No, that's actually false. Those models turned out to be correct when fed with new data over collected over their projection duration.
Misleading.
You need to separate out two different things people mean when they say "models". One is modelling how the climate responds to changes in greenhouse gases. The second is estimating the future emissions of greenhouse gas by humans. Only one of these two is climate modeling (which is what we are talking about).
If you look at models made in the past, and input into those models the actual amount of greenhouse gasses emitted (something that the modelers in the past didn't know), the greenhouse gas warming actually achieved was pretty much identical to what the models said would be predicted. The climate models showed themselves to be pretty accurate.
As for the end to end models, including both guesses as to human emissions and also the warming effect, almost always these models had a range based on different emission scenariod: "if we do this, the predicted result is that". The most well known of these is the Hansen model, which had three different scenarios, high, low, and intermediate. And, you know what? The actual result is pretty much a good fit to the intermediate scenario. (here's the comparison: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jun/25/30-years-later-deniers-are-still-lying-about-hansens-amazing-global-warming-prediction#img-2 [theguardian.com]
So: no. The past models have been pretty much spot on.
In other words, the models are no good at predicting, but pretty good at fitting.
The climate models themselves have been very good at predicting. The human emissions models have always projected many different scenarios, but so far the "intermediate" scenario model predictions have been pretty good.
So for use about future trends - they are worthless. It's why 95% of all models run much too hot [drroyspencer.com], and why this /. post even exists.
Spenser is an outlier. He says loud and repeatedly how his results (which are for middle atmosphere temperature, not surface temperature) are better than anybody else's... but nobody else seems to be able to reproduce his results. A good discussion of satellite temperature measurement is actually available on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] with a link to a article on microwave sounding unit measurement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Old predictions were pretty good [Re:good grief..] (Score:3)
There was an article about the accuracy of these models not too far ago right here on Slashdot. If you read the synopsis,
And if you don't want to read the synopsis, but read the actual links showing that the models were mostly right, they are here:
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00243-w
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-models-got-it-right-on-global-warming/ >br>
And analysing a few of the spe
Re: (Score:2)
You're probably trolling but.... per the article, "all models are imperfect, some are useful." Modeling the Earth is pretty difficult to do given the numerous feedback mechanisms (both positive and negative) that come into play. Saying that because models are showing a surprising change means we don't understand the science is just ignorant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
To my mind, this is the last word about climate change models.
"Syukuro Manabe, right here in Princeton, was the first person who did climate models with enhanced carbon dioxide and they were excellent models. And he used to say very firmly that these models are very good tools for understanding climate, but they are not good tools for predicting climate. I think that’s absolutely right. They are models, but they don’t pretend to be the real world. They are purely fluid dynamics. You can learn a
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Dyson is talking about pure science.
Climate change is really about a narrative around social change. That social change is wanted regardless of whether there is a realistic prediction or not. This is why all the solutions are about the particular values and ethics which various groups are trying to promote, and why, for example, a sudden asteroid impact is not listed as a major concern, because blasting it with nukes out in space has nothing to do with social change.
Now don't get me wrong, ethically the wor
Turned out to be pretty good [Re:good grief people (Score:3)
https://climategraphs.wordpress.com/2017/11/06/evaluating-the-prediction-of-manabe-and-wetherald-1967/ [wordpress.com]
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/15/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2
You mean "if some random magazine doesn't". (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The debate is over (Score:5, Insightful)
Less debate and more alarmism please!
The debate over the fact that the Earth is warming due to human emitted greenhouse gasses is over. Yes, the warming is real, and yes, we're causing it. Other possible explanations have been ruled out.
The debate over exactly how much warming to expect in the future is not over.
The big picture is very clear. Now we need the models to narrow in on the details.
Re: (Score:2)
You jest...
They don't understand why their models are off the charts? Yea... I'm going out on a limb and call that "click bait" reporting.
Re:This is not new (Score:4, Informative)
Models have been running hot as long as there have been models. https://www.drroyspencer.com/2... [drroyspencer.com]
Nope. Roy Spencer is an outlier. Nobody else interprets the microwave emissivity the way he does.
The best data we have... pretty much shows that the earlier models predicted results fine:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming [sciencemag.org]
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL085378 [wiley.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Roy Spencer is an outlier. Nobody else interprets the microwave emissivity the way he does.
That graph is not his data or his "interpretation". Are you taking issue with HADCRUT4 or CMIP5?
RSS data [Re:This is not new] (Score:2)
Roy Spencer is an outlier. Nobody else interprets the microwave emissivity the way he does.
That graph is not his data or his "interpretation". Are you taking issue with HADCRUT4 or CMIP5?
The graphs he produces are absolutely his interpretation. Do you have any notion of how you turn microwave emissivity into temperature profile? Since you're looking down from above, the whole art of interpreting satellite data is removing the signature of the higher atmosphere (which you're looking through) from the lower atmosphere (which you want to be looking at). You can't actually get the air temperature at the surface (if the MSU instrument looks that low, you get too much of the actual surface, whi
Re: (Score:2)
Human farts only made it to about 50000 in the same year
(Source: https://doi.org/10.3402/tellus... [doi.org])
So the answer is: Yes, human farts do contribute to global warming, and in the end it's the sum of all things that matters right?
*clenches buttcheeks tightly*
Re: (Score:2)
Well at least I'm not alone in my analysis of the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)