4 ms·

Meanwhile Peter Wadhams has been saying for years that the IPCC was dramatically underestimating the thinning of ice, on the grounds that he'd been spending dec

Meanwhile Peter Wadhams has been saying for years that the IPCC was dramatically underestimating the thinning of ice, on the grounds that he'd been spending decades roaming under the ice in submarines, and what the IPCC estimated for years in the future he'd already seen with his own eyes. His book A Farewell to Ice is a pretty compelling read.

hannob 5y ago
Wadhams is controversial, to say the least, and he's been wrong in the past. See e.g. here: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/faulty-science-doomism-and-flawed-conclusions-deep-adaptation/ https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/faulty-science-d... This is an issue I've been struggling with myself to navigate sometimes. There's sometimes a thin line between scientists who rightfully say that some of the "mainstream" climate predictions (aka the IPCC) have underestimated risks vs. those that spread baseless doomism.
- kaesar14 5y ago
  It does seem like the mainstream estimates were pretty wrong in how aggressive warming would be.
  - hannob 5y ago
    So what? Wadham was also pretty wrong. "X was wrong, so I'll support the words of Y who was wrong in a different direction" is not a very smart position to have.
    - kaesar14 5y ago
      I don’t really know anything about Wadham. I’m only commenting on the balance between mainstream estimates of climate milestones and what ended up happening - some more pessimism thrown into the models might be necessary.
- DennisP 5y ago
  His prediction was overly pessimistic, but based on OP's article it appears his account of the current state of the ice was spot on. This doesn't seem surprising since his specialty was observing the ice, not modeling the future.
- rewgs 5y ago
  The meme of “scientists spreading doom and gloom” just doesn’t appear to be rooted in reality, though. A much more obvious explanation is that what they’re revealing and proposing is unbelievably dark and holistically bad that people can’t wrap their heads around the complexity of it all, and if they can’t, they choose to ignore it. Our reactions to our own mortality explain a lot here.
tanylak 5y ago
Great book
vegetablepotpie 5y ago
Thank you for the book recommendation. I try to read and listen to as much content as I can about climate change. > IPCC was dramatically underestimating the thinning of ice Much of the IPCC reports summarizes work of scientist, who downplay their own results out of fear that their results will be interpreted as alarmist or biased towards an agenda. This was shown in the documentary Merchants of Doubt. The specific mechanisms employed to carry this out is outlined in this drilled podcast episode https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/drilled/id1439735906?i=1000465248169 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/drilled/id1439735906?i... it talks about the media, but it uses human psychology and applies to all people.

hannob 5y ago

Wadhams is controversial, to say the least, and he's been wrong in the past. See e.g. here: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/faulty-science-doomism-and-flawed-conclusions-deep-adaptation/ https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/faulty-science-d... This is an issue I've been struggling with myself to navigate sometimes. There's sometimes a thin line between scientists who rightfully say that some of the "mainstream" climate predictions (aka the IPCC) have underestimated risks vs. those that spread baseless doomism.

kaesar14 5y ago
It does seem like the mainstream estimates were pretty wrong in how aggressive warming would be.
- hannob 5y ago
  So what? Wadham was also pretty wrong. "X was wrong, so I'll support the words of Y who was wrong in a different direction" is not a very smart position to have.
  - kaesar14 5y ago
    I don’t really know anything about Wadham. I’m only commenting on the balance between mainstream estimates of climate milestones and what ended up happening - some more pessimism thrown into the models might be necessary.
DennisP 5y ago
His prediction was overly pessimistic, but based on OP's article it appears his account of the current state of the ice was spot on. This doesn't seem surprising since his specialty was observing the ice, not modeling the future.
rewgs 5y ago
The meme of “scientists spreading doom and gloom” just doesn’t appear to be rooted in reality, though. A much more obvious explanation is that what they’re revealing and proposing is unbelievably dark and holistically bad that people can’t wrap their heads around the complexity of it all, and if they can’t, they choose to ignore it. Our reactions to our own mortality explain a lot here.

tanylak 5y ago

Great book

vegetablepotpie 5y ago

Thank you for the book recommendation. I try to read and listen to as much content as I can about climate change. > IPCC was dramatically underestimating the thinning of ice Much of the IPCC reports summarizes work of scientist, who downplay their own results out of fear that their results will be interpreted as alarmist or biased towards an agenda. This was shown in the documentary Merchants of Doubt. The specific mechanisms employed to carry this out is outlined in this drilled podcast episode https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/drilled/id1439735906?i=1000465248169 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/drilled/id1439735906?i... it talks about the media, but it uses human psychology and applies to all people.