3 ms·

That's not overly-alarmy; it's a demonstration of the astounding capabilities of climate models to describe incomprehensibly complex phenomena to a remarkable d

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...

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...