The Economist provides the best article yet on the science of climate change

[Triumph]

The Models Predict the Trend very accurately.

Ummm...even though They are 4 times Less Accurate than they need to Be to make those Predictions? Please Explain.

Just Saying It Doesn't Make It So, Sandorski.

 

[sandorski]

Ummm...even though They are 4 times Less Accurate than they need to Be to make those Predictions? Please Explain.

Just Saying It Doesn't Make It So, Sandorski.

Predicting anything is a difficult task. The Climate Models though have a very good track record at Predicting Trends(using Known Climate Data as a Benchmark then running the Models from a Point in the Past as a starting point). No Model is ever going to be 100% accurate.

 

[yllus]

Wait a minute. These models have sensitivities on the order of degrees, anywhere from 1.7 to 4.4. But the collected data tells us that the global average temperature has increased by 0.4C over the last 100 years, which, they tell us, is a problem. And we're headed for doomsday according to the models. But the models are nowhere near accurate enough to predict anything. Isn't there a problem here?

The article's last paragraph takes a shot at addressing that:

Using the IPCC’s assessment of probabilities, the sensitivity to a doubling of carbon dioxide of less than 1.5ºC in such a scenario has perhaps one chance in ten of being correct. But if the IPCC were underestimating things by a factor of five or so, that would still leave only a 50:50 chance of such a desirable outcome.

The fact that the uncertainties allow you to construct a relatively benign future does not allow you to ignore futures in which climate change is large, and in some of which it is very dangerous indeed. The doubters are right that uncertainties are rife in climate science. They are wrong when they present that as a reason for inaction.

My response to the above is to ask for, if the worst case scenario were the one we would be facing, what cuts will be necessary to pull us back from the edge? If the reply is "Copenhagen", I know that I should seek answers elsewhere.

 

[WHAMPOM]

I cannot get over the fact that so many expect the thirty year old science of global climatology to be perfect. You found out that their tree ring data isn't an accurate record of climate! So what!! What a bunch of noobs you are!

 

[tatteredpotato]

Wow... "best science" and "Economist" in the same sentence.

My economics teacher was very passionate in her belief that anything divided by zero is infinity...

 

[yllus]

I am disappointed yet completely unsurprised by this forum's general ignorance regarding The Economist. I wonder, do you folks take all proper nouns literally? Is Taco Bell, in fact, a bell shaped like a taco? (Or, less interestingly, the other way around?)

 

[Lemon law]

Triumph points out, "Ummm...even though They ( the climate models) are 4 times Less Accurate than they need to Be to make those Predictions? Please Explain.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK I will again try to take a stab at it. Right now, the chief problem with our climate models is that we are getting far less global warming at the mid and lower latitudes than the climate models predict, and far more global warming than predicted at both poles. So to some extent we can say the average is right, but Triumph point granted, we need both precision than we have now, and an in addition we don't understand how the earth
moves heat from the equator to the poles.

But the more scary parts of the models imprecision, is that global waring is occurring predominantly at the most planet damaging parts of the earth, namely both poles.

Because it the poles that lock up the ice that could cause huge sea level changes, and its the poles where large quantities of meta stable methane hydrates are, that could simply all bubble into the atmosphere and ignite a run away greenhouse effect.

At the end of the day, Triumph may be correct in a naive Pollyannish way, to somehow demand perfect data before we act, but in the real world we never have perfect data and do not let it paralyze us into inaction.

 

[monovillage]

Liberal Activist Says 'Cognitive' Brain Patterns Prevent Conservatives From Accepting Threat of Global Warming

"George Lakoff, an author and professor of cognitive science and linguistics at the University of California-Berkeley, says cognitive perceptions form a world view that prevents conservatives from believing in global warming."

There you go, the science is settled! Climate models can predict future climate changes as well as a coin toss.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/63191

 

[Blackjack200]

I am disappointed yet completely unsurprised by this forum's general ignorance regarding The Economist. I wonder, do you folks take all proper nouns literally? Is Taco Bell, in fact, a bell shaped like a taco? (Or, less interestingly, the other way around?)

Ok, this made me laugh.

 

[ElFenix]

I am disappointed yet completely unsurprised by this forum's general ignorance regarding The Economist. I wonder, do you folks take all proper nouns literally? Is Taco Bell, in fact, a bell shaped like a taco? (Or, less interestingly, the other way around?)

that's a taco salad

 

[Darwin333]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will agree with the Hacp contention that its not proved. But then again, I have yet to see any scientifically controlled experiment that proves that the large recent temperature rises have nothing to do with man made causes either.

Why then should Hasp then conclude that we should reject the probability that climate change is due to man made causes?

When neither side can prove it.

It still defaults to the fact that we must act on incomplete information, as we play the gambling game of we bet human prosperity and survival.

The question then becomes, exactly how much are you willing to bet? Going to one extreme, are you willing to trade current prosperity for future survival (lets call it 150 years from now)?

What if its just our own prosperity that we are putting on the line? Another gamble in the hopes that others follow suit? What if they don't?

Does shifting the pollution to other areas of the planet have any positive effect at all? We can shut down every concrete factory in the US but I guarantee we don't stop using concrete and other countries would be more than happy to supply it to us. Have we gained anything?


I guess my point is, IS there a reasonable answer? I don't believe that China, India or any other developing country is going to enact any kind of real measures to combat this anytime soon. Any and all pollution we cease to create will more than likely be created elsewhere to replace the demand for whatever product was being produced. We aren't going to tariff them very heavily because of our import situation. So even if we can prove its 100% real, what can we do as a single nation besides push new technology and hope we can get it cheap enough to compete?

 

[Lemon law]

Darwin also has a point. But it still defaults to the demand perfect data before taking action.

Its already been somewhat demonstrated that early USA EPA efforts at power plant cleanup in the 1970's have reversed the droughts in the deserts of mid Africa.

And for what its worth, the explosive growth of Chinese heavy Industry has had a very negative impact in polluting much of China. As a result China is now starting to lead the green revolution.

As a result everyone in the Planet is in the same uncertainty boat. Because as air and Oceans current move, the USA, now largely composed of futile farm land, could become a desert, and other formerly desert areas could become more fertile farm land. The problem is, once ample rainfall returns to a desert, it then takes ten of thousands of years to build back soil fertility required to take advantage of the changes in rainfall.

All we know is that mankind is seeming thriving in current conditions. And now as modern technology based on burning fossil fuels is going global, is that we are playing Russian Roulette with our climate. Because we have no idea if man kind can survive and thrive in the climate changes that are all too likely to result.

But if there is anything positive in the Darwin message, its that time is running out for all of mankind to go green, Because actions taken in place A can have profound and unknowable effects in place B that is located half way around the world.

And we can also ask, do we want to have some superior knowledge so we can use greenhouse gasses as a weapon, we already know some future Hitler type would cheerfully starve another nation to death by depriving them of rain.

But our bigger danger, IMHO, is creating a major non reversible tipping point, where an Ocean current totally changes. And then its anyone's guess on the climate we will get.
Just a stoppage of the gulf stream could put all of Europe in an ice box, and ironically global warming could trigger another ice age.

 

[Matthiasa]

The graph is nice and all, but well all know what happens when you go back farther.
That by the way is why graphs are so fun they can be made to show whatever you want.

 

[cwjerome]

Whenever I read about global warming I think of the Michael Crichton quote, "Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled."

And the stupid up there who says global warming isn't a political issue obviously doesn't know anything about politics in general or the role of science in modern society.