11 ms·

...So what climate scientists have been doing for decades? Yet they were still ignored. So people state more alarming predictions and get told “if only you’d be

...So what climate scientists have been doing for decades? Yet they were still ignored. So people state more alarming predictions and get told “if only you’d been more moderate and reasonable”. The truth is that most (Western) people simply don’t care that much.

CivBase 6y ago
> So what climate scientists have been doing for decades? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_sea_ice_decline#Ice-free_summer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_sea_ice_decline#Ice-fre... > Many scientists have attempted to estimate when the Arctic will be "ice-free". Professor Peter Wadhams of the University of Cambridge is among these scientists; Wadhams in 2014 predicted that by 2020 "summer sea ice to disappear," Wadhams and several others have noted that climate model predictions have been overly conservative regarding sea ice decline. A 2013 paper suggested that models commonly underestimate the solar radiation absorption characteristics of wildfire soot. In 2007, Professor Wieslaw Maslowski from the Naval Postgraduate School, California, predicted removal of summer ice by 2013; subsequently, in 2013, Maslowski predicted 2016 ±3 years. Looks to me like there have been plenty of overly-alarming predictions about a Blue Ocean Event over the last two decades.
- claydavisss 6y ago
  > in 2014 predicted that by 2020 "summer sea ice to disappear And what could the human race have done in 2014 to prevent that?
- Daishiman 6y ago
  That's not overly-alarmy; it's a demonstration of the astounding capabilities of climate models to describe incomprehensibly complex phenomena to a remarkable degree.
  - julienb_sea 6y ago
    Given the references in the comment you are replying to, I think more people might interpret as a demonstration of the astounding degree that climate models can totally miss the mark. And calls into question the degree to which we should base policy decisions - with major negative consequences - on those models.
    - sdenton4 6y ago
      The wikipedia 'graph talks about one scientist who made an over-aggressive estimate... And then lays out the more 'conservative' estimates, placing the BOE sometime between 2022 and the 2030's or 2040's. That sounds like the process working, to me; there's a range of estimates, and it's foolish to disregard honestly-obtained outliers just because they are on the outside. As it is, I don't think even the over-aggressive calls have "totally missed the mark"; what we're seeing now says maybe they were off by a few years. In terms of global risk analysis around climate change, that error doesn't really matter all that much. Calling to address a major tipping point a few years early is arguably a feature, even.
  - CivBase 6y ago
    I think that's a very forgiving take. I recognize that climate change is extremely complex and it's a huge accomplishment for our models to be as accurate as they are. However, they are clearly not accurate enough to be making statements like "2016 ±3 years". Statements like that are easy ammunition for climate change denial.
    - BlueTemplar 6y ago
      It was probably this graph - you can understand how it looked very bad at the time ? http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Mnr3XCiELco/UFxdVV5QMfI/AAAAAAAAFCs/36415hSLvOw/s1600/8552374583488.jpg http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Mnr3XCiELco/UFxdVV5QMfI/AAAAAAAAFC...
- ku-man 6y ago
  "Looks to me like there have been plenty of overly-alarming predictions about a Blue Ocean Event over the last two decades." Absolutely. I clearly remember, back in 2008, that many scientists predicted a Blue Ocean Event by 2015. We are entering 2021 and still there is sea-ice in the Arctic (granted, it's thinner and the covering area has diminished, but still there is sea-ice in the Arctic!). I am not a climate change denialist but because of these over-alarming claims the climatic scientists have lost credibility with lots of people. And no, having Jane Fonda arrested is not helping in the credibility department.
- burade 6y ago
  Are you serious right now? Do you realize how hard it is to predict this stuff? You actually expect them to nail it down to the year? lol
  - algorias 6y ago
    Well, if someone is predicting an event 3 years into the future, then... yeah!
  - CivBase 6y ago
    What makes you think I expect them to make an accurate prediction down to the year? The last prediction from that quote was made in 2013 and predicted 2016 +/- 3 years. Inaccuracies aren't the issue here. The problem is that well-intentioned scientists and politicians are making overly-alarming predictions that keep eroding the populations trust when they keep failing to come true. How do you convince someone to believe you when you say climate change is a real, serious, and immediate threat when they have been lied to about the subject over and over again?
    - moultano 6y ago
      The context of that prediction were the extreme records set by sea ice in 2012, when it did almost disappear. That made some scientists think that we were seeing a nonlinear phase shift and that it would not recover. It did recover, and resumed its linear downward trajectory. But if your takeaway from that is that scientists are overconfident and wrong, that is insane, because the important thing to know about sea ice is that at its yearly minimum, its volume is a third of what it was in 1980. No matter how you cut it, it's almost gone. https://twitter.com/ZLabe/status/1314620374601003008?s=19 https://twitter.com/ZLabe/status/1314620374601003008?s=19
      - LoSboccacc 6y ago
        > But if your takeaway from that is that scientists are overconfident and wrong my takeaway is that every years hundred models are given birth, every year later the model fitting the data best survive, and two year later when that last model prediction fail, a new model from the previous that that predicted the change better replaces it, in a never ending cycle of bullshit. the models go both way: without a predictive model that can hold water, how do you know which parameter to tune to resolve the climate crisis?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
JauntTrooper 6y ago
I think the reason they're being ignored is because the required solution is now political, and our governing institutions are inadequate and unable to address the problem.
- bamboozled 6y ago
  They're just changing I feel. Maybe it's too slow but the end is near for fossil fuels, it's either because humans will end up extinct if we keep burning it at the current rate or because it's not economically competitive anymore. As corrupt and as rotten as politics is, there is a limit to how far you can push for coal and fracking before it just becomes silly.
- tomp 6y ago
  The proposed solutions are political. When someone tells me I need to stop eating meat, pave forests with solar panels and stop flying, I know they're talking politics, not climate change. I hate ideologies trying to control my life. What happened to nuclear, geoengineering, fair revenue-neutral carbon taxes - those are reasonable solutions. Instead, I have to chew on a slimy paper straw...
  - triceratops 6y ago
    > need to stop eating meat, stop flying That'll happen anyway with carbon taxes. Or at least it'll cost a lot more and many people will do less of it. Until we have carbon taxes, you could choose to do it voluntarily to help out. > pave forests with solar panels I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that. > What happened to nuclear Expensive and difficult to build. But if you like it, France, the UK and India are still doing it. And you're always free to advocate for it. "They oppose nuclear" isn't a great reason to stop working with people on solving the problem of climate change. Why be so prescriptive in solutions by saying "nukes or bust"? > geoengineering You mean the thing that's already gotten us into this mess? > fair revenue-neutral carbon taxes Cheers to that. A lot of the people you dislike politically support those. Work with them.
    - 6y ago
elefanten 6y ago
You don’t need that (Western) qualifier. Given the opportunity, people all around the world choose not to care that much.
vkou 6y ago
I would love the global warming denialists to be held to the same standard as climate scientists. Missed one prediction, and their entire platform can be dismissed out of hand.

CivBase 6y ago

> So what climate scientists have been doing for decades? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_sea_ice_decline#Ice-free_summer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_sea_ice_decline#Ice-fre... > Many scientists have attempted to estimate when the Arctic will be "ice-free". Professor Peter Wadhams of the University of Cambridge is among these scientists; Wadhams in 2014 predicted that by 2020 "summer sea ice to disappear," Wadhams and several others have noted that climate model predictions have been overly conservative regarding sea ice decline. A 2013 paper suggested that models commonly underestimate the solar radiation absorption characteristics of wildfire soot. In 2007, Professor Wieslaw Maslowski from the Naval Postgraduate School, California, predicted removal of summer ice by 2013; subsequently, in 2013, Maslowski predicted 2016 ±3 years. Looks to me like there have been plenty of overly-alarming predictions about a Blue Ocean Event over the last two decades.

claydavisss 6y ago
> in 2014 predicted that by 2020 "summer sea ice to disappear And what could the human race have done in 2014 to prevent that?
Daishiman 6y ago
That's not overly-alarmy; it's a demonstration of the astounding capabilities of climate models to describe incomprehensibly complex phenomena to a remarkable degree.
- julienb_sea 6y ago
  Given the references in the comment you are replying to, I think more people might interpret as a demonstration of the astounding degree that climate models can totally miss the mark. And calls into question the degree to which we should base policy decisions - with major negative consequences - on those models.
  - sdenton4 6y ago
    The wikipedia 'graph talks about one scientist who made an over-aggressive estimate... And then lays out the more 'conservative' estimates, placing the BOE sometime between 2022 and the 2030's or 2040's. That sounds like the process working, to me; there's a range of estimates, and it's foolish to disregard honestly-obtained outliers just because they are on the outside. As it is, I don't think even the over-aggressive calls have "totally missed the mark"; what we're seeing now says maybe they were off by a few years. In terms of global risk analysis around climate change, that error doesn't really matter all that much. Calling to address a major tipping point a few years early is arguably a feature, even.
- CivBase 6y ago
  I think that's a very forgiving take. I recognize that climate change is extremely complex and it's a huge accomplishment for our models to be as accurate as they are. However, they are clearly not accurate enough to be making statements like "2016 ±3 years". Statements like that are easy ammunition for climate change denial.
  - BlueTemplar 6y ago
    It was probably this graph - you can understand how it looked very bad at the time ? http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Mnr3XCiELco/UFxdVV5QMfI/AAAAAAAAFCs/36415hSLvOw/s1600/8552374583488.jpg http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Mnr3XCiELco/UFxdVV5QMfI/AAAAAAAAFC...
ku-man 6y ago
"Looks to me like there have been plenty of overly-alarming predictions about a Blue Ocean Event over the last two decades." Absolutely. I clearly remember, back in 2008, that many scientists predicted a Blue Ocean Event by 2015. We are entering 2021 and still there is sea-ice in the Arctic (granted, it's thinner and the covering area has diminished, but still there is sea-ice in the Arctic!). I am not a climate change denialist but because of these over-alarming claims the climatic scientists have lost credibility with lots of people. And no, having Jane Fonda arrested is not helping in the credibility department.
burade 6y ago
Are you serious right now? Do you realize how hard it is to predict this stuff? You actually expect them to nail it down to the year? lol
- algorias 6y ago
  Well, if someone is predicting an event 3 years into the future, then... yeah!
- CivBase 6y ago
  What makes you think I expect them to make an accurate prediction down to the year? The last prediction from that quote was made in 2013 and predicted 2016 +/- 3 years. Inaccuracies aren't the issue here. The problem is that well-intentioned scientists and politicians are making overly-alarming predictions that keep eroding the populations trust when they keep failing to come true. How do you convince someone to believe you when you say climate change is a real, serious, and immediate threat when they have been lied to about the subject over and over again?
  - moultano 6y ago
    The context of that prediction were the extreme records set by sea ice in 2012, when it did almost disappear. That made some scientists think that we were seeing a nonlinear phase shift and that it would not recover. It did recover, and resumed its linear downward trajectory. But if your takeaway from that is that scientists are overconfident and wrong, that is insane, because the important thing to know about sea ice is that at its yearly minimum, its volume is a third of what it was in 1980. No matter how you cut it, it's almost gone. https://twitter.com/ZLabe/status/1314620374601003008?s=19 https://twitter.com/ZLabe/status/1314620374601003008?s=19
    - LoSboccacc 6y ago
      > But if your takeaway from that is that scientists are overconfident and wrong my takeaway is that every years hundred models are given birth, every year later the model fitting the data best survive, and two year later when that last model prediction fail, a new model from the previous that that predicted the change better replaces it, in a never ending cycle of bullshit. the models go both way: without a predictive model that can hold water, how do you know which parameter to tune to resolve the climate crisis?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

JauntTrooper 6y ago

I think the reason they're being ignored is because the required solution is now political, and our governing institutions are inadequate and unable to address the problem.

bamboozled 6y ago
They're just changing I feel. Maybe it's too slow but the end is near for fossil fuels, it's either because humans will end up extinct if we keep burning it at the current rate or because it's not economically competitive anymore. As corrupt and as rotten as politics is, there is a limit to how far you can push for coal and fracking before it just becomes silly.
tomp 6y ago
The proposed solutions are political. When someone tells me I need to stop eating meat, pave forests with solar panels and stop flying, I know they're talking politics, not climate change. I hate ideologies trying to control my life. What happened to nuclear, geoengineering, fair revenue-neutral carbon taxes - those are reasonable solutions. Instead, I have to chew on a slimy paper straw...
- triceratops 6y ago
  > need to stop eating meat, stop flying That'll happen anyway with carbon taxes. Or at least it'll cost a lot more and many people will do less of it. Until we have carbon taxes, you could choose to do it voluntarily to help out. > pave forests with solar panels I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that. > What happened to nuclear Expensive and difficult to build. But if you like it, France, the UK and India are still doing it. And you're always free to advocate for it. "They oppose nuclear" isn't a great reason to stop working with people on solving the problem of climate change. Why be so prescriptive in solutions by saying "nukes or bust"? > geoengineering You mean the thing that's already gotten us into this mess? > fair revenue-neutral carbon taxes Cheers to that. A lot of the people you dislike politically support those. Work with them.
  - 6y ago

elefanten 6y ago

You don’t need that (Western) qualifier. Given the opportunity, people all around the world choose not to care that much.

vkou 6y ago

I would love the global warming denialists to be held to the same standard as climate scientists. Missed one prediction, and their entire platform can be dismissed out of hand.