3 ms·

I'm fascinated by this graph of the growth of solar as compared to International Agency Predictions. Year after year, the IEA massively underestimated the grow

by tito 7y ago

I'm fascinated by this graph of the growth of solar as compared to International Agency Predictions. Year after year, the IEA massively underestimated the growth of solar. Last year, at a workshop with the World Bank I heard an expert in energy investments say "even just 5 years ago none of us ever thought the price of solar could go this low this fast". GRAPH: https://steinbuch.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/iea-vs-reality-photovoltaics-2018.png?w=1102 https://steinbuch.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/iea-vs-reality... I'm curious if there's something similar for the changing climate. Just how much are we underestimating the changing climate? Has anyone seen a graph like the one above, but regarding climate predictions? For example, the rate of Greeland's massive ice melt was as high as the worst climate predictions for 2070, decades into the future. [1][2] It seems even the scientific predictions can be too conservative. [1] https://twitter.com/xavierfettweis/status/1156487868950482945 https://twitter.com/xavierfettweis/status/115648786895048294... [2] https://twitter.com/xavierfettweis/status/1156487868950482945 https://twitter.com/xavierfettweis/status/115648786895048294...

maxerickson 7y ago
That melt isn't as unprecedented as the Forbes blagger makes it out to be. Follow the chain and you find out that it is reasonably comparable to one that happened in…2012: https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/08/01/greenland-ice-sheet-poured-billion-tons-water-into-north-atlantic-july-alone/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/08/01/greenland-... If it ends up part of even a 2 year pattern, that's already concerning, I'm not dismissing the issue, I'm just slagging Forbes links.
- tito 7y ago
  Huge props. I haven't even read the link you posted, but wanted to say I admire your post. Climate discussions often end up fighting even though they're all sort of on the same page. I'm always up for adding more curiosity, and holding everything to a higher standard. I'll check out the link and perhaps find a better reference for the above post. EDIT: Cleaned out the Forbes links, thanks!
- tito 7y ago
  Following up here: The reference to 2070 seems to relate to the rate of melting (ablation rate), which was greater than the 2012 melt. The rate of the recent melt was modeled as the average daily melting rate in 2070 in SSP585: https://twitter.com/xavierfettweis/status/1156487868950482945 https://twitter.com/xavierfettweis/status/115648786895048294... Oh so this looks interesting. Here's what SSP585 refers to, it's a hardcore model for 2000 ppm by 2200: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Relation-of-C4MIP-simulations-to-CMIP6-DECK-and-historical-simulations-and-the-ssp585-and_fig1_306920281 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Relation-of-C4MIP-simula... I haven't found the source for linking that to the ablation rate besides the above xavierfettweis tweet tho. But he has a followup tweet in that thread saying it was related to the melting rate overall.

by tito 7y ago

maxerickson 7y ago

That melt isn't as unprecedented as the Forbes blagger makes it out to be. Follow the chain and you find out that it is reasonably comparable to one that happened in…2012: https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/08/01/greenland-ice-sheet-poured-billion-tons-water-into-north-atlantic-july-alone/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/08/01/greenland-... If it ends up part of even a 2 year pattern, that's already concerning, I'm not dismissing the issue, I'm just slagging Forbes links.

tito 7y ago
Huge props. I haven't even read the link you posted, but wanted to say I admire your post. Climate discussions often end up fighting even though they're all sort of on the same page. I'm always up for adding more curiosity, and holding everything to a higher standard. I'll check out the link and perhaps find a better reference for the above post. EDIT: Cleaned out the Forbes links, thanks!
tito 7y ago
Following up here: The reference to 2070 seems to relate to the rate of melting (ablation rate), which was greater than the 2012 melt. The rate of the recent melt was modeled as the average daily melting rate in 2070 in SSP585: https://twitter.com/xavierfettweis/status/1156487868950482945 https://twitter.com/xavierfettweis/status/115648786895048294... Oh so this looks interesting. Here's what SSP585 refers to, it's a hardcore model for 2000 ppm by 2200: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Relation-of-C4MIP-simulations-to-CMIP6-DECK-and-historical-simulations-and-the-ssp585-and_fig1_306920281 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Relation-of-C4MIP-simula... I haven't found the source for linking that to the ablation rate besides the above xavierfettweis tweet tho. But he has a followup tweet in that thread saying it was related to the melting rate overall.