8 ms·
"Faster than expected" is a common phrase in climate research. For example, the arctic is warming 4X faster than the rest of the planet, antarctic ice melt, arc
by tejohnso 5y ago
"Faster than expected" is a common phrase in climate research. For example, the arctic is warming 4X faster than the rest of the planet, antarctic ice melt, arctic ice extent reduction, methane emissions, etc, all happening faster than expected, depending on the source. Someone even put together a namesake blog, fasterthanexpected.com - it's a decent source for a high level picture of what is going on.
I say "depending on the source" because there are some extreme doom and gloom types for whom these changes are happening more slowly than expected. However, the difference is negligible. The doom and gloom types might say the end of the world is only 2 years away, which is extreme, but now even peer reviewed research in respected publications are starting to mention very severe outcomes within decades. In previous decades, these publications wouldn't publish anything like that at all, then eventually they began to publish papers that mention these events happening within centuries, and now papers are coming out with very serious consequences being only decades away. The really scary thing is that the likelihood of sudden catastrophic change (eg: methane bombs, Thwaites Glacier collapse) is increasing, which could make the shorter time frame predictions actually come true.
- creaghpatr 5y agoThat the 'expectations' are wildly off-base when predicting the extent and timing of climate change is a staple of the field.
- redprince 5y agoSo much so that it is known for at least 10 years that this is the case. And also why: Fear of being accused of being an alarmist or sounding too extreme. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-science-predictions-prove-too-conservative/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-science-p... "Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama?" https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959378012001215 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09593...
- Sharlin 5y agoIt was difficult enough to get the powers that be to believe even those very conservative predictions – even those were incessantly attacked and/or ignored for being propaganda, alarmist, unrealistic, bad science, a conspiracy by climate scientists just trying to secure grants…
- webmaven 5y ago> It was difficult enough to get the powers that be to believe even those very conservative predictions – even those were incessantly attacked and/or ignored for being propaganda, alarmist, unrealistic, bad science, a conspiracy by climate scientists just trying to secure grants… It was a lost opportunity to shift the Overton window, which led to the moderate — rather than the extreme — projections being labelled as alarmist.
- Sharlin 5y agoYeah, but had there been a loud minority of climate scientists professing less moderate views, then the opponents would have simply retorted "see, they themselves can't even agree on what they think will happen!" And the scientific community was painfully aware that any internal disagreement would be used by the opponents to spread doubt, as seen in the leaked Climategate correspondence. Of course, this call for a united front was then used by the denialists as evidence for their climate conspiracy theory, so it's not like the humanity had any actual chance of winning against itself here. We really done fucked up this time.
- webmaven 5y agoPresumably, that scenario still includes figures advocating complacency, so you're really comparing a situation where opinion is presented as split between complacency and moderation vs complacency, moderation, and alarmism. Both-sideism works in your favor in the latter case, and if someone digs into the numbers a bit more, they would find that the alarmists outnumber the complacents. The only real risk is that the alarmists provoke an "it's already too late to fix anything" response, which I don't think is terribly likely, as there isn't an upper bound on how bad things get until you hit a tipping point of civilizational collapse.
- vkou 5y agoIt's a staple of the field because the official expectations are, by design, conservative. Because, well, nobody wants to listen to 'alarmists' and 'extremists'.
- defaultprimate 5y agoWeird how the IPCC reports have consistently pushed their models' disaster and negative effect predictions further into the future every year for over a decade then.
- avereveard 5y agoevery few or so year, IPCC picks the best model from hundred in the past few years that predicted the present the best, extrapolate the future, and call it the truth, and people online get flogged for suggesting that maybe the whole process reek of selection bias, since the model in exam are for the most part curve fitting and not derived from first principles, so in a changing environment their long term accuracy is questionable.
- vegetablepotpie 5y agoI can appreciate why its used. It’s a retort to common thought terminating cliches often said to dismiss climate reporting, which are, “this won’t happen anytime soon,” and “it won’t be that bad.” Once you get that out of the way, you can move on from rhetoric and focus on content.
- jp57 5y agoHow much confirmation bias is happening here? If things happen more than expected, would they get reported? The non-disappearance of the glaciers in Glacier National Park[1] is one example I can think of. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/glaciers-national-park-2020-trnd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/glaciers-national-park-202... -- In 2020, Glacier National Park in Montana had to remove signs saying that the Glaciers would be gone by 2020, since the glaciers were still there.
- mensetmanusman 5y agoIf only the glaciers could read, then maybe they would have listened.
- irrational 5y agoIt’s like the lady wanting to know how the deer know how to read the deer crossing signs so they know where to cross.
- webmaven 5y agoAlso like the 115 yo who has been drinking and smoking heavily for most of their life managing to live a long life because when they were young nobody knew those things were bad for you.
- tejohnso 5y ago> Instead, the new signs will say: "When they will completely disappear depends on how and when we act. One thing is consistent: the glaciers in the park are shrinking." Predicting a specific date limit for a specific area was probably not a great idea. Maybe someone wanted a photo-op. Disappointing. The point remains: faster-than-expected is going to depend on whose expectations you're talking about and at what time. But things are accelerating, and in the wrong direction. Also, some of the dozens of tipping points have likely already been triggered. According to the latest Global Glacier Change Bulletin[1] compiled by the World Glacier Monitoring Service: "The percentage of positive annual mass balances decreased from 28% in the 1980s to 9% (2017/18–2018/19), and there have been no more years with a positive mean balance for more than four decades. The melt rate and cumulative loss in glacier thickness continues to be extraordinary. Furthermore, the analysis of mean AAR values shows that the glaciers are in strong and increasing imbalance with the climate and hence will continue to lose mass even if climate remained stable (Mernild et al., 2013)." Another infamous too-early prediction is Maslowski's 2007 projection of an ice free arctic by 2016 +- 3yrs. There will always be too-early predictions out there. But whether we're EOL in 2 years, 20 years, or sometime within a millenial's lifetime, I think is the wrong thing to be focusing on. [1]: https://wgms.ch/ggcb/ https://wgms.ch/ggcb/
- titzer 5y agoThey are happening faster than expected because IPCC reports have been sandbagging for decades. Which, TBH, is entirely rational not only for political, but also scientific, reasons. I, for one, might be a doomer, but have no illusions about us meeting goals to keep warming under 1.5C, or even 2C for that matter, and it is going to happen "faster than expected".
- yesbut 5y agoWe should just sit back wait for solutions to climate change to become profitable enough for the owner-class to act. Nothing to worry about. I'm sure they will figure it out before it is too late. If only they had been made aware of this problem earlier. The market will solve this in no time.
- taurath 5y agoWe should just enshrine into law that we won’t bail them out this time
- jacquesm 5y agoYou won't have to, they'll be fine and you'll be gone.
- lisper 5y ago> I'm sure they will figure it out before it is too late. It's already too late.
- ffwszgf 5y agoIf it’s already too late we have no reason to worry about it anymore. Climate activists need to find a new job
- tejohnso 5y agoI think that's actually a rational position to take. We've already blown past 1.5 degrees C if you use the original 1750 baseline and 2 degrees C is already baked into the atmosphere. Short of some massively scaled up energy reflectance or capture / storage technology, implemented quickly, we're headed for extreme consequences. Note that we are already experiencing relatively mild consequences such as sudden human deaths in the dozens or hundreds, home loss, small species habitat loss, destruction of entire villages or small towns, etc. The mainstream is starting to accept attribution of these things to global warming now. Interestingly, before the IPCC was formed their precursor had set the magic number at 1.0 degrees C. Then IPCC set it to 1.5 degrees C. Then they moved the goalpost by changing the baseline from pre-industrial 1750 to 1900 (or maybe 1850). Personally, I'm not a fan of arbitrary numbers anyway. I prefer to look at significant events. For me, the big slap in the face will come when we see an ice free arctic ocean.
- vanusa 5y agoThe doom and gloom types might say the end of the world is only 2 years away, No one talks of the "end of the world" being 2 years away. There are some who speak of "tipping points" happening N years from now, but that is something very different. Right?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jacquesm 5y agoThe big danger is positive feedback loops. We don't know what they are until they hit and then things could tip quicker than we ever thought possible. Without any data to guide us other than the historical record, which has no precedent of the kind of change we have been able to achieve it is next to impossible to make a model that will accurately predict our near future.
- refurb 5y agoIf there is a massive feedback loop ready to trip in a decade or two then we are proper fucked with no way out.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> We don't know what they are until they hit There's some we have pretty good idea about (perhaps not exceptions to this rule, because we are to an extent already experiencing them to a certain extent) such as ice-albedo feedback. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice%E2%80%93albedo_feedback https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice%E2%80%93albedo_feedback