14 ms·
Scientists Have Been Underestimating the Pace of Climate Change
- bertil 7y agoNot exactly: Scientists have been giving confidence intervals and no one really paid attention to the wurst case scenario.
- sabertoothed 7y ago> the wurst case scenario Please elaborate :)
- misterdoubt 7y agoWe're cooked.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- taneq 7y agoWe're sausaged?
- bregma 7y agoWurst casing -- you feel it in your guts.
- tk75x 7y agohttps://i.redd.it/o95h5vlg8q401.jpg https://i.redd.it/o95h5vlg8q401.jpg
- rv-de 7y agoI find it fascinating that normal food presented in odd ways and combinations can look so exceptionally repulsive. Maybe a variation of the uncanny valley phenomenon.
- jajag 7y agoThe article describes how long-tail outcomes have been excluded from forecasts out of a desire by scientists to present a unified voice so as to minimize perceived doubt.
- hammock 7y agoThis comment is the real headline. The communication around the models has been manipulated to make the entire body of work seem more confident and consistent than it really is.
- ryanmercer 7y ago> Scientists have been giving confidence intervals and no one really paid attention to the wurst case scenario The problem is, we've passed the worst case scenario scientists came up with in some areas: Greenland's ice is melting at the rate scientists thought would be our worst-case scenario in 2070 https://www.businessinsider.com/greenland-ice-melting-is-2070-worst-case-2019-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/greenland-ice-melting-is-207...
- ReptileMan 7y ago>wurst case scenario. As long as we have rye bread, mustard and beer, I am willing to risk it. Also - typo of the year.
- adrianN 7y agoIt's long been known that the IPCC reports tend to be too conservative. Nevertheless politicians take the numbers for the least dramatic predictions and turn them into promises that they then don't keep. I guess that it won't be long before some country or other embarks on a unilateral geoengineering experiment. Perhaps when river basins in India start reaching lethal wet-bulb temperatures regularly. Let's just hope that it won't make things worse.
- kgwgk 7y agoIf they were too conservative why did they need to revise down their forecasts? https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/01/ipcc-silently-slashes-its-global-warming-predictions-in-the-ar5-final-draft/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/01/ipcc-silently-slashes...
- DennisP 7y agoThat says the IPCC revised down their final report from the earlier draft, which accurately described what the models projected. Your article even said they did that revision without consulting the scientists who made the models. That's entirely consistent with the claim that the IPCC's final reports have been underplaying the actual science, for political reasons. (Your article is also from five years ago, and still talks about the "missing warming." That was always nonsense, but even hardcore deniers have abandoned that talking point since warming in the last five years has been dramatic.)
- Peckingjay 7y agoIPCC reports are all about getting scientific data acknowledged officially by governments. Of course many of those government officials participating in the process are going to push back against a draft that contains statements that have consequences that inconvenience them on the political field. That's to be expected. So yeah, when reading an IPCC report it's good to keep in mind that it is going to be conservative.
- addicted 7y ago
- arvinsim 7y agoNo one wants to pay the cost of tackling this problem. Especially not the for-profit corporations that are responsible for some of the worst pollution in the world. Ironically, they own the biggest capital and resources to be able to tackle the problem that they are creating.
- agent008t 7y agoWhy? Are there reasons to believe that the shareholders/board members of these companies would not be negatively affected by climate change? Or are they ignorant?
- tonyedgecombe 7y agoPresumably they think they are rich enough to buy themselves out of any problems.
- franky47 7y agoThe sad reality is that they probably are able to buy their way of of this. I was visiting Tito's bunker in Bosnia last week, and to think it was ok to build a multi-billion dollar facility to hold only 350 politicians and VIPs in case of global nuclear wipeout seems crazy, but when the need arises, people with power will always try and find a quick way out, often at the expense of others.
- selimthegrim 7y agoWas this the aerodrome in the mountain near the Croatian border?
- franky47 7y agoNo it's located in a mountain near Konjic, between Mostar and Sarajevo. It now serves as a modern art gallery and a museum to the cold war. The place is very well preserved, as the bunker's HVAC unit has been running since the 60's.
- alanwil2 7y agoPres Donald Trump doesn't seem to care about climate change. Koch's give him a lot of campaign money so he does nothing.
- Dumblydorr 7y agoHe tweeted that a few years back. Since then he basically has said remarkably little. Had to face ZERO questions at all of the 5 debates he went to. In office, he has basically used the weather is cold, scientists disagree BS q few times, but still remarkably silent. I believe Ivanka and the younger folks around him tried to get him to stay in Paris accord.
- bubblewrap 7y agoSo in the past their predictions were incorrect, but we were supposed to 100% believe them. Now they are corrected, so they are even more believable.
- CommieDetector 7y agoWhat the scientists are saying is irrelevant when every suggested solution is some form of global one world communist government.
- michlsemn 7y agoOne of the memes on https://reddit.com/r/collapse https://reddit.com/r/collapse is "faster than expected," referencing the frequent articles mentioning how climate change's effects are kicking in much sooner than expected.
- diveloper 7y agoI don't know how to feel about that subreddit. On one hand, they discuss the daunting reality of climate change in a way you don't see in many other corners of the internet (besides HN). On the other hand, reading it is definitely not good for one's mental health and they often don't propose any solutions, and generally the mood is a very "we lost, the game is over" attitude. That's not going to help anyone, even if we are too late to stop a large amount of warming.
- CalRobert 7y agoI stop by that subreddit every few months and it is frustrating that the only places people seem honest with themselves about the real impact of this is also filled with fatalism. Maybe they're right. Even so, it's still worth _trying_ to fix it, or barring that, to try to save as many billions from a horrible death as possible. The approach taken by Dark Mountain is a little better I think - they don't focus on false hopes, but a literary response to the catastrophe (apocalypse might be a better word) on the horizon and how to deal with it on a human level. We're all doomed, after all, by dint of our mortality (or our sun's, barring that). Moments of joy can still be had.
- czechdeveloper 7y agoIt's just place where you can be pessimistic by default. It's forgotten everywhere else it seems.
- GatitoLindo 7y agoYeah, it's important for pessimists and pessimistic realists to have a place to talk about these things without the ever-pervasive prescription to hopium that seems to be tacked onto the end of every.single.article. There can be an acceptance that things are too far gone for most people to impact positively, and that many people have consigned themselves to this. IMO as long as they aren't going out into public and trying to attack environmentalists who are trying to make changes, it's a good and healthy thing for people to have a community of like-minded individuals to talk with.
- TekMol 7y agoWhat if humans collectively decided to not have any new kids anymore and maximize quality of life for the humans that already are living on planet earth? I would love to see this thought experiment thought out in detail. What decisions would we make? Where would we invest? Would climate control still be an issue?
- malvosenior 7y agoHumanity would die out. Doesn’t seem very useful.
- rficcaglia 7y agoIt would be to the other 99.9999% of species. Maybe E Coli amd Herpes beasties get the shaft.
- pepega 7y agoYou should watch the anime Parasyte
- hyperbovine 7y agoDefine useful.
- malvosenior 7y agoKeeping with the primary objective of every living species (survival and reproduction).
- ptah 7y agoi think it would lead to humanity's extinction as the humans that are around now will eventually die
- kzrdude 7y agoWe could start with a global two children policy. But it's extremely hard to go even there. Two because we should have second chances, and alone children are less socially adapted than those with siblings.
- turk73 7y agoRegardless, I'm still not going to live in a collectivist dictatorship.
- francisofascii 7y agoWhat about the idea of adding particulates to the atmosphere to block a portion of the sun's rays?
- Dumblydorr 7y agoWe could try to simulate a volcanic eruption, which have demonstrably cooled the planet in the past. Also I wonder with cheaper rocket flights, can we put sunlight reflectors over the arctic regions to save their ice?
- sitkack 7y agoA couple of strategically detonated nukes on a tradwind path should cool things down. The same super computers that predict the weather can predict exact placement and yield.
- petschge 7y agoMay I point you to doi 10.1002/2017JD027331 that concluded "This analysis demonstrates that while modest, statistically significant differences occur during the first few years, longer‐term impacts are unlikely, regional in scope, and limited in scale. None of the simulations produced a nuclear winter effect."?
- sitkack 7y agoI guess that is good and bad news. Hopefully India and Pakistan don't try and refute the findings. Since you are now my Oracle, how large of a cold spot can we create using a space based sun shade? What would it take to keep arctic methane in the ground?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- chr1 7y agoInstead of putting reflectors into orbit it would be cheaper to use hot air balloons, but in general either reflectors or balloons are the best solution to climate change, because they allow to actually control the weather, and the amount of rain different places get. By creating more rains over sahara, we'll not only get more place to live, but the new ecosystem there would consume all the CO2 that was added by us into atmosphere, so we even wouldn't need to reduce the oil usage for now.
- doe88 7y agoI think given the current political climate (sic), scientists tends to be overly cautious on these subjects. They know they can be berated for any not fully proven detail or tiny error. All in all I don't think this is a bad thing, forces against real changes are such that incremental actions are the norm anyway.
- s9w 7y agoIt's curious how the situation can be viewed like this. In my experience it's the exact opposite. Headlines in my country (Germany) are absolutely dominated by the climate doomsday scenarios. Taxpayers spent hundets of millions of euros for "greener" energy, entire industries are ruined. We even killed nuclear because it's somehow not green enough. Heck even fusion energy is too evil. Fridays for future and the green party are dictating what is allowed to be said. Dozens of German cities are literally in a climate state of emergency (no joke). The sky is falling according to everyone.
- std_throwaway 7y agoWell, the sky is very likely falling but it is falling so slowly that the older generation won't see any severe effects. In the great scheme it won't matter so much what Germany does if the rest of the world continues to burn the coal. The only direct effect that deindustrializing Germany has is it will kill the German economy today.
- Dumblydorr 7y agoGermany is continuing to burn coal, that is why axing their nuclear was such an unforced error.
- mgoetzke 7y agoThe unforced error was/is not building out solar/wind/battery storage etc. Instead they just added a tax for every citizen to pay on electricity and KEEP promoting coal. Also WHY don't counties/cities own any solar/wind power stations to increase independence and lower long-term cost ? Instead they sell out to companies or rich investors instead and those get subsidized.
- carapace 7y agoDr. Gwynne Dyer gave a talk, "Geopolitics in a Hotter World" – Sept. 2010 > So when the Hadley Centre put these numbers out they were incorporating (which the IPCC does not) the early impacts of positive feedbacks, as well as just how much carbon dioxide will we put into the air by 2060. First time that had been done, but it gives you a really frightening number…and then they did the map. Which is again, something that’s not normally done, and the consequence is we don’t have a lot of time. We’re in deep trouble. And the military know this; the military know this everywhere. > the rule of thumb is that you lose 10% of global food production for every 1 degree Celsius higher average global temperature. > So food becomes the critical issue and the countries most impacted are tropical and subtropical and this is where the geopolitics comes from. > “people always raid before they starve.” > There’s already a well established pattern: when you’re in deep trouble and you can’t feed your family, head north. > But the dirty secret is that you can only shut a border if you’re willing to kill people. > No government that cannot feed its population survives. > We’re going to go through the point of no return (and probably a good deal further) in terms of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Almost certain. > And there is maybe a way to cheat: and that is geoengineering. > “we’ve crunched the numbers and we figure we could get one degree Celsius of cooling average worldwide just by painting all the roads and the roofs white.” > I talked–actually, the head of the Bangladesh Institute of Strategic Studies about this (you didn’t even know that existed, did you?). Well, there is one, it’s quite serious–run by a General, bright guy. I said, “have you heard about geoengineering?” and he smiled–seraphically–and he said, “Mmm. Yes. Your question?” > And I asked the question, “Do you think that this is something the Bangladesh government might want to do a little bit, before, let’s say, the US government or the Chinese government?” > He said, “yes it has crossed our minds.”–and then he stopped talking. ... Talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mc_4Z1oiXhY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mc_4Z1oiXhY Transcribed: https://spaswell.wordpress.com/2016/11/18/dr-gwynne-dyer-geopolitics-in-a-hotter-world-ubc-talk-transcribed-sept-2010/ https://spaswell.wordpress.com/2016/11/18/dr-gwynne-dyer-geo...
- aszantu 7y agoDoesn't water cool when it changes state? Ice melting should be pulling down temps for the time in that spot? More heat would evaporate more water and thus cool more?
- RyanAF7 7y agoExcept methane is the cause and intentionally so as it will dissapate in less than a decade but make it appear as if the world is warming more quickly than estimated. It's a trick and people eat this shit up hook line and ignorant sinker.
- EForEndeavour 7y agoWhat a sad account.
- RyanAF7 7y agoWhat a pedestrian response.
- mikelyons 7y agoIf that response is 'pedestrian' would it be 'hipster' to join you in your self-deceptions and spews of negativity?
- mikelyons 7y agoIt is really interesting to look through. Ton's of conclusion jumping, ideology, cynicism. I mean, it's only sad if you have transcended this stuff, otherwise it's relatable probably!
- mikelyons 7y agoThis comment seems like it would be flagged/dead by now ... Do you have any citations for the claims you make?
- RyanAF7 7y agoYou're welcome to research and learn - I suggest you start with hydroxyl radicals. Asking for citation in a world of counter examples and studies is a little technocratic. Maybe just logic and learn it.
- 7y ago
- GatitoLindo 7y ago>"Elsewhere we have documented a pattern we label "erring on the side of least drama." By this we mean that scientists often have a tendency to avoid dramatic findings, because drama is associated with emotion, feelings, irrationality, and even femininity, qualities that have traditionally been viewed as at odds with scientific rationality. We have shown that in several domains related to climate change, scientists' estimates of various threats - CO2 emissions, Arctic Sea ice loss, Sea level rise - have tended to be low relative to actual outcomes. Scientists considered such underestimates to be "conservative" because they are conservative with respect to the question of when to sound an alarm or how loudly to sound it. (It is of course not conservative when viewed in terms of giving people adequate time to prepare.) The history recounted here is consistent with this finding: That WAIS assessments underestimated the threat of rapid ice sheet disintegration, because most of the scientists who participated were more comfortable with an estimate that they viewed as "Conservative" than with one that was not." (Discerning Experts, 2019. Michael Oppenheimer, Naomi Oreskes, Dale Jamieson, Keynyn Brysse, Jessica O'Reilly, Matthew Shindell, and Milena Wazeck)