4 ms·

Which papers predict that? That’s a new one for me. Around 2010 I remember reading a prediction of ice free arctic by 2020. It used to go hand in hand with the

Which papers predict that? That’s a new one for me. Around 2010 I remember reading a prediction of ice free arctic by 2020. It used to go hand in hand with the polar bear panic.

myshpa 3y ago
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/06/world/arctic-sea-ice-free-climate-change/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/06/world/arctic-sea-ice-free... And with this year's temperatures it might be even sooner.
- brutusborn 3y ago
  Thanks for the link. It’s interesting how CNN doesn’t report that 2030 is the bottom of their confidence interval. They might be correct, but I don’t have much faith. They have essentially done a temp-ice area regression to fit a model to 50 years of data. Thus they rely on the accuracy of the temp predictions of the IPCC models which I also don’t have much faith in. I lost a lot of confidence in them this year, under-predicting warming so significantly. Most climate scientists imply that this error is simply them underestimating anthropogenic warming rather than it being an indication that their models are not particularly accurate. From the climate science community I have heard some suggestions the volcanic eruption last year was to blame for the extra warming, as well as changes to sulphite pollution policies. I believe the earth is warming, but that much of it is probably due to existing natural trends and that adaptation will not be particularly hard. When models can predict El Niño with precision or changes in large scale circulation then I think I will be convinced.
  - myshpa 3y ago
    > I believe the earth is warming, but that much of it is probably due to existing natural trends and that adaptation will not be particularly hard. That's called denial and hopium. > When models can predict El Niño with precision or changes in large scale circulation then I think I will be convinced We can't predict what local weather will be 3+ days from now. You're being unrealistic, at least.
    - brutusborn 3y ago
      Haha perhaps, but I don’t think so. There’s no fundamental reason our climate models can’t have resolution that allows us to see major natural processes. If we can’t confidently predict weather 3 days out at decent resolution, why are we so confident in forecasts of 50 years with a coarse resolution? And if our models don’t contain important forcing such as sulphite aerosols and volcanic activity, how can be so certain of attribution to GHG? I know people usually start talking about the precautionary principle at this point, but I think a big part of that is being skeptical of the models unless their predictions closely match observation.
      - myshpa 3y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37012248 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37012248

Which papers predict that? That’s a new one for me. Around 2010 I remember reading a prediction of ice free arctic by 2020. It used to go hand in hand with the polar bear panic.

myshpa 3y ago

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/06/world/arctic-sea-ice-free-climate-change/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/06/world/arctic-sea-ice-free... And with this year's temperatures it might be even sooner.

brutusborn 3y ago
Thanks for the link. It’s interesting how CNN doesn’t report that 2030 is the bottom of their confidence interval. They might be correct, but I don’t have much faith. They have essentially done a temp-ice area regression to fit a model to 50 years of data. Thus they rely on the accuracy of the temp predictions of the IPCC models which I also don’t have much faith in. I lost a lot of confidence in them this year, under-predicting warming so significantly. Most climate scientists imply that this error is simply them underestimating anthropogenic warming rather than it being an indication that their models are not particularly accurate. From the climate science community I have heard some suggestions the volcanic eruption last year was to blame for the extra warming, as well as changes to sulphite pollution policies. I believe the earth is warming, but that much of it is probably due to existing natural trends and that adaptation will not be particularly hard. When models can predict El Niño with precision or changes in large scale circulation then I think I will be convinced.
- myshpa 3y ago
  > I believe the earth is warming, but that much of it is probably due to existing natural trends and that adaptation will not be particularly hard. That's called denial and hopium. > When models can predict El Niño with precision or changes in large scale circulation then I think I will be convinced We can't predict what local weather will be 3+ days from now. You're being unrealistic, at least.
  - brutusborn 3y ago
    Haha perhaps, but I don’t think so. There’s no fundamental reason our climate models can’t have resolution that allows us to see major natural processes. If we can’t confidently predict weather 3 days out at decent resolution, why are we so confident in forecasts of 50 years with a coarse resolution? And if our models don’t contain important forcing such as sulphite aerosols and volcanic activity, how can be so certain of attribution to GHG? I know people usually start talking about the precautionary principle at this point, but I think a big part of that is being skeptical of the models unless their predictions closely match observation.
    - myshpa 3y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37012248 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37012248