10 ms·
I've got a background in this field and I am very surprised to see this published in Nature. The model presented is purely statistical with no representation of
by braaannigan 3y ago
I've got a background in this field and I am very surprised to see this published in Nature. The model presented is purely statistical with no representation of the underlying physics. When we are dealing with a phenomenon that is driven by well-understood physical laws (e.g. geophysical fluid dynamics, radiation physics etc) then these physical models are the most reliable basis for prediction.
When I say physical models here by the way I'm referring to physically-based mathematical models as well as numerical models.
It seems that the authors have done a good job in developing their model. My issue is with Nature deciding to publish it. If this paper was not published in Nature it would receive little attention within or without climate science - in fact many such statistical models are published each year without much comment. However, Nature have published a paper that I think many ocean scientists would feel draws dramatic conclusions from a weak basis but will now inevitably draw much more attention than more insightful papers.
MIT professor Carl Wunsch accused Nature in 2010 of near-tabloid science with a tendency towards sensational papers built on weak foundations. However, I've felt that Nature's choice of publications on climate in recent years has been high quality. This paper feels like a big step-down from that standard.
- gwerbret 3y agoThe publication is in Nature Communications, which is a bit of a different (lesser) beast than Nature.
- braaannigan 3y agoThanks for pointing this out, I missed that
- CamperBob2 3y agoThis is becoming a perennial refrain in HN stories based on scientific papers. ("Oh, wait, this dubious study or lazy meta-analysis isn't really appearing in Nature, it's some other publication to which Nature has whored out their name and credibility.") It sounds like the 150-year-old scientific journal of record has been taken over by private equity, or by MBAs with KPIs to optimize.
- boondoggle16 3y agoVery very poignant comment here.
- hackerzzzz 3y agoHackers news literally exists to perform lazy meta analysis
- hackzzz 3y ago[flagged]
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y agoSorry, Nature can't try to pull the Buzzfeed/Buzzfeed News schtick. They can't have a clickbait journal where they use their name to lend it credibility it would otherwise not have, and then claim no this isn't "Nature" and try to keep their credibility.
- FrustratedMonky 3y agoLike TedX diluted TED.
- PeterStuer 3y agoWe've been very surprised as to which studies made it to nature over the past decade. I can't help but conclude that the influence of (politial) bias has been steadily growing over the years. (Fwiw, i'm personally taking the climate change subject extremely serious).
- dkarl 3y ago> Fwiw, i'm personally taking the climate change subject extremely serious It's not worth anything, since the conservative rear guard and even outright deniers say the same thing these days. If you mean to separate yourself from such people, you'll have to put it differently.
- doublepg23 3y agoI’ve been suggesting we flagellate ourselves in the streets to make sure people know we’re on the right side of history.
- sieste 3y ago> physical models are the most reliable basis for prediction Simpler models can yield better predictions than complex ones, even when the complex model is more "realistic". The many tunable parameters and complex feedback loops can increase uncertainty compared to a simple model. See for example "To explain or to predict?" by Shmueli (2010, https://doi.org/10.1214/10-STS330 https://doi.org/10.1214/10-STS330)
- braaannigan 3y agoMany of the physical models are of similar complexity to the model in this paper - the sort of analytical model that you run in a few minutes on your laptop, not on a super-computer. It's not a question of complexity it's about whether a statistical model that is not constrained by well-understood constraints is a high-value model
- sieste 3y agoAgreed. Also I'm not here to defend their particular model. Just saying that "physical" does not always equal "better predictions". Their model equation (1) has 4 parameters. Do you have any papers at hand that model AMOC in a more physically constrained way, with a similar number of tunable parameters?
- AndrewKemendo 3y agoBased on my initial reading so far this seems like the best take. However, I’ll offer an alternative perspective. This paper identifies that IPCC does not expect a collapse in the 21st-century. That alone should be our largest biasing factor when we’re asking - from a time horizon perspective - what should we be doing? So then, why now? I think it’s compelling that they identified two preconditions for a collapse they have been monitoring, and now are indicating that we are on the trajectory towards collapse, given what we were looking for for indications and warning. As a former military officer, the key thing that you get from intelligence is long-term forecasting and indications and warnings for negative or dangerous actions by your adversaries and risk-taking by your allies. So following that same logic, then if two of the largest indications and warnings for a future energy transfer collapse/flip scenario, based on the best modeling we have today, are indicating that we are on that trajectory, then it seems appropriate for the most well respected journal to relay that fact.
- mistermann 3y agoAs a former military officer, does it concern you at all that in this case if the time comes that we must mobilize, like yesterday, instead of issuing orders and having them followed, we may have a 4 to 12 year lag as the orders filter through our "democracy", which is composed largely of a bunch of children arguing over their respective fantasy land realities (as illustrated among our best and brightest here every time the topic comes up)? I feel like "a chain is only as strong as its weakest link" is in play here in a very big way.
- AndrewKemendo 3y agoAt least in the US the military works at the speed of congressional appropriations. If Congress and the President agree to what you consider a “4-6 year lag” in whatever response we take then, the best Service and COCOM chiefs can do is give advice and then execute orders. Call and vote for your congressperson if you want lasting change in the use of the DoD.
- mistermann 3y ago
- whalesalad 3y agoThe collapse needs to be discussed more. The only way for that discussion to occur is if research is published.
- malloci 3y agoSkepticism on this was called out in WaPo's article on the same subject: Other experts on the AMOC also cautioned that because the new study doesn’t present new observations of the entire ocean system — instead, it is extrapolating about the future based on past data from a limited region of the Atlantic — its conclusions should be taken with a grain of salt. Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/07/25/atlantic-ocean-amoc-climate-change/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/07/2...
- foota 3y agoI'm not sure a grain of salt will make much difference here in the ocean :-)
- Biologist123 3y agoAs a lay-bystander to the climate debate, I get a little spooked when I see comments like this. Like 99.9% of people, the science of complex climate systems is beyond me as are the de facto black box models that project climate change. Instead I use “appears in a credible journal” as a basis for trusting the apparent direction of travel and I’m disconcerted when I see that proxy challenged. I also, I am somewhat sorry to say, likely to discount anonymous comments as credible as there is so much propaganda in this space. That’s not to say I don’t understand the challenge of modeling complex systems, but want to point out that one of the most frustrating things about the climate debate is that the battling sides require us to take on trust what they tell us for some very big changes. It’s difficult. Question for the community: how does one navigate such uncertainty?
- sigspec 3y agoBourbon
- Biologist123 3y agoNice :-)
- oceanthrowaway 3y agoTo me this is the great utility of the IPCC reports. If you look at the full report you can find subsections on many aspects of climate change and a discussion of the state of the field complete with citations compiled by an expert.
- barbazoo 3y agoHow would a layperson like myself judge what's in the IPCC report? The predictions are so dramatic that we have to act now and can't wait and see how it turns out. How is it different from this submission here?
- oceanthrowaway 3y agoI think if you read the full IPCC report you will see they are far from dramatic. Often news articles on the reports include calls to action (which I am all for given the path we are on). I believe the IPCC may also issue a statement about the report as a whole on release. However, if you read subsections of the full report you will see each domain specialist assign low medium or high confidence to each potential climate outcome. They also include useful descriptions of the physical mechanisms behind many climate phenomenon
- asow92 3y agoIf it bleeds, it leads.
- draw_down 3y ago[dead]
- chriskanan 3y agoThe journal is Nature Communications, which has a much lower impact factor than Nature. Many of the papers rejected from Nature are encouraged to be automatically transferred to Nature Communications. One nice thing about Nature Communications is that one can read the reviews: https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41467-023-39810-w/MediaObjects/41467_2023_39810_MOESM2_ESM.pdf https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs414...
- TSiege 3y agoThis is excellent. Thank you for sharing. I had no idea you could read the reviewers notes and feedback
- sveme 3y agoIt's Nature Communications, not Nature itself. Relevant quote: > If a paper is rejected from one Nature journal, the authors can use an automated manuscript transfer service to submit the paper to Nature Communications via a link sent to them by the editor handling the manuscript.
- zymhan 3y agoIndeed, the byline mentions that it is "Open Access" > Article | Open Access
- waitSo 3y agoElectromagnetism as a theory did not work until Maxwell removed a bunch of imaginary pulleys and weights intended to simulate real objects. Did Einstein rocket off at the speed of light before coming up with relativity? All those things were later refined as they were the correct cognitive framework with inaccurate physical models behind them.
- GeoAtreides 3y ago> I've got a background in this field Would help taking your observations seriously if you provided some credentials, studies published, etc. Otherwise, and of course I say this with all respect, you're just some guy on the internet (spreading FUD, but that's another story)
- rekabis 3y agoA lot of publicly-published forecasts of climate change have been ridiculously - and I would emphasize hilariously so - conservative on their numbers and predictions. Pretty much every “worst case scenario” morphs into a “best case scenario” over a year or three, before being dropped wholesale for being unrealistically optimistic due to how fast climate change is accelerating. So can this happen “sooner than expected”, along with the massive raft of climate change outcomes that are cropping up 20, 50, and even 100 years “earlier than expected”? Let’s just say that if climate change was on the stock exchange, I’d be dumping serious money into its futures. Nothing seems to be truly “off the table” anymore, even the truly outlandish outcomes are becoming terrifyingly prescient.