3 ms·

I'm never quite sure what to do with these kinds of articles. When we can't actually say what is causing change in the Atlantic Ocean today, its tough to buy an

I'm never quite sure what to do with these kinds of articles. When we can't actually say what is causing change in the Atlantic Ocean today, its tough to buy any modelling that purports to know what is likely to happened over the coming decades. If our models were really accurate enough to be useful guides, should we have seen a change like this coming or at least be aware of what modelled as a less likely scenario that would lead to this outcome?

baazaa 2y ago
The AGW case should have been that it's easy to observe the earth is absorbing more energy than it's emitting, easy to demonstrate that this is due to greenhouse gasses, and it doesn't depend on complex modelling but rather basic physics. Instead the atmospheric and oceanographic modellers managed to identify their extremely fallible models with climate change as a thesis, and now half the population trusts those models far too much, and the other half is far too skeptical of global warming generally.
- HPsquared 2y ago
  The problem is how to model the humongous influence of water vapour, albedo and cloud cover. There are so many feedbacks and complex dynamics there, it's not as simple as if we simply had a "nitrogen, oxygen and CO2" atmosphere.
TheBigSalad 2y ago
A model that predicts what will happen in 500 years doesn't need to predict every minor deviation in ocean temperature for every quarter of every year.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  I mentioned decades though, most environmental models target the 20-30 year range and I've never seen one that goes out to 500 years. You're changing my point so you can argue against something I never said. I'd expect a model that is expected to be accurate over a handful of decades would in fact be predictive on the scale of a year or a few years. I also specifically left open the avenue that a model didn't predict this as a likely outcome but did have smaller probability outcomes that would have predicted a temperature decrease. Its reasonable enough that the model may have found this as unlikely, but unreasonable if the model was so wrong that it wasn't even aware of this as a possible outcome in the first few years of the model. The data simply can't be useful 30 years out when it has such blind spots only a year or a few years out. For clarity, when I mention models here I mean all recent environmental models attempting to predict global climate or specifically ocean temperatures. If we have no idea why the temperature has dropped then every model failed to provide any scenarios where that would have happened.
- mike_hearn 2y ago
  They do actually. Climate models are iterative so error compounds. If you dig into what those models do, well... cover your eyes. Some frequently run off the rails and predict a climate like Venus or Pluto. They're non-deterministic and don't always do this. Obviously that's due to bugs but the bugs don't get fixed. Instead they just do lots of runs and pick the ones that don't go crazy.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    This is a huge blind spot with regards to how climate models are actually reported. If you see the sheer number of models run and number of models reported on, you could easily think researchers are throwing darts and cherry picking results that match the narrative they wish to tell. More importantly, because models are iterative the data becomes more and more useless as time goes on and predictions are missed. In this case, any model that expected the Atlantic to increase in temperature this year will likely be even less accurate for next year's prediction. Sure the models can be re-run with the latest climate data, but that just moves the goal posts and raises the question of when we realize the models aren't predictive.
EricE 2y ago
Ssshhhh - don't challenge dogma from the current pet religion with logic or reason!
silverquiet 2y ago
If you want metaphysical certitude, then some people seem to find that in religion, though I never was able to. Models are what we have, and yes, rather limited. To me, that's terrifying because it means that there could be truly world-ending, mass-extinction level consequences lurking in these systems. And we know that events like that have happened in the history of the Earth when the carbon cycle is thrown off balance. My biggest comfort in all this is that I don't have children who I will have to explain this to or who will live to see the consequences; frankly, I'm scared of the consequences I'll live to see.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  > To me, that's terrifying because it means that there could be truly world-ending, mass-extinction level consequences lurking in these systems. "Could be" is the real key there in my opinion. We simply don't know. And I don't mean that in any kind of climate change denial sense, those arguments fall into the same trap as anyone arguing that we definitely know how and why climate will change and why it is changing. We don't have the data for it, and a system on the scale of the entire planet is simply too complex to be able to predict. My big worry when it comes to climate isn't what mass extinction events could be coming, its the fear that potential creates. Fear as scale always leads to bad outcomes. Fear gives us authoritarians, bigotry, wars, and on and on. We need to recognize that society is almost certainly drastically outstripping planetary boundaries. Once we accept that we need to move towards simple changes we can make like reducing consumption, and we need to focus heavily on embracing the uncertainty of life rather than fearing it.
  - silverquiet 2y ago
    What does it mean to embrace the uncertainty of life? I live a very uncertain existence myself, and for me it has meant never putting down any kind of roots or committing to anything that I can't escape easily.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      Sure, I'd expect it looks different for everyone. I would propose that a common thread should likely include a lack of, or at least control over, fear of the unknown.

baazaa 2y ago

The AGW case should have been that it's easy to observe the earth is absorbing more energy than it's emitting, easy to demonstrate that this is due to greenhouse gasses, and it doesn't depend on complex modelling but rather basic physics. Instead the atmospheric and oceanographic modellers managed to identify their extremely fallible models with climate change as a thesis, and now half the population trusts those models far too much, and the other half is far too skeptical of global warming generally.

HPsquared 2y ago
The problem is how to model the humongous influence of water vapour, albedo and cloud cover. There are so many feedbacks and complex dynamics there, it's not as simple as if we simply had a "nitrogen, oxygen and CO2" atmosphere.

TheBigSalad 2y ago

A model that predicts what will happen in 500 years doesn't need to predict every minor deviation in ocean temperature for every quarter of every year.

_heimdall 2y ago
I mentioned decades though, most environmental models target the 20-30 year range and I've never seen one that goes out to 500 years. You're changing my point so you can argue against something I never said. I'd expect a model that is expected to be accurate over a handful of decades would in fact be predictive on the scale of a year or a few years. I also specifically left open the avenue that a model didn't predict this as a likely outcome but did have smaller probability outcomes that would have predicted a temperature decrease. Its reasonable enough that the model may have found this as unlikely, but unreasonable if the model was so wrong that it wasn't even aware of this as a possible outcome in the first few years of the model. The data simply can't be useful 30 years out when it has such blind spots only a year or a few years out. For clarity, when I mention models here I mean all recent environmental models attempting to predict global climate or specifically ocean temperatures. If we have no idea why the temperature has dropped then every model failed to provide any scenarios where that would have happened.
mike_hearn 2y ago
They do actually. Climate models are iterative so error compounds. If you dig into what those models do, well... cover your eyes. Some frequently run off the rails and predict a climate like Venus or Pluto. They're non-deterministic and don't always do this. Obviously that's due to bugs but the bugs don't get fixed. Instead they just do lots of runs and pick the ones that don't go crazy.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  This is a huge blind spot with regards to how climate models are actually reported. If you see the sheer number of models run and number of models reported on, you could easily think researchers are throwing darts and cherry picking results that match the narrative they wish to tell. More importantly, because models are iterative the data becomes more and more useless as time goes on and predictions are missed. In this case, any model that expected the Atlantic to increase in temperature this year will likely be even less accurate for next year's prediction. Sure the models can be re-run with the latest climate data, but that just moves the goal posts and raises the question of when we realize the models aren't predictive.

EricE 2y ago

Ssshhhh - don't challenge dogma from the current pet religion with logic or reason!

silverquiet 2y ago

If you want metaphysical certitude, then some people seem to find that in religion, though I never was able to. Models are what we have, and yes, rather limited. To me, that's terrifying because it means that there could be truly world-ending, mass-extinction level consequences lurking in these systems. And we know that events like that have happened in the history of the Earth when the carbon cycle is thrown off balance. My biggest comfort in all this is that I don't have children who I will have to explain this to or who will live to see the consequences; frankly, I'm scared of the consequences I'll live to see.

_heimdall 2y ago
> To me, that's terrifying because it means that there could be truly world-ending, mass-extinction level consequences lurking in these systems. "Could be" is the real key there in my opinion. We simply don't know. And I don't mean that in any kind of climate change denial sense, those arguments fall into the same trap as anyone arguing that we definitely know how and why climate will change and why it is changing. We don't have the data for it, and a system on the scale of the entire planet is simply too complex to be able to predict. My big worry when it comes to climate isn't what mass extinction events could be coming, its the fear that potential creates. Fear as scale always leads to bad outcomes. Fear gives us authoritarians, bigotry, wars, and on and on. We need to recognize that society is almost certainly drastically outstripping planetary boundaries. Once we accept that we need to move towards simple changes we can make like reducing consumption, and we need to focus heavily on embracing the uncertainty of life rather than fearing it.
- silverquiet 2y ago
  What does it mean to embrace the uncertainty of life? I live a very uncertain existence myself, and for me it has meant never putting down any kind of roots or committing to anything that I can't escape easily.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Sure, I'd expect it looks different for everyone. I would propose that a common thread should likely include a lack of, or at least control over, fear of the unknown.