SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A new study in Nature [Ed-Abstract only for non-subscribers, but see below.] predicts that climate warming will be 15% greater than previous high estimates have predicted. This new study suggests that humans need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions more than previously expected and more than the Paris Agreement calls for. This study was based on analyzing the earth's "energy budget" (absorption and re-emission of radiation) and inputting that into a number of different climate models.
Also covered in more detail in Phys.org and in the Guardian.
The researchers focused on comparing model projections and observations of the spatial and seasonal patterns of how energy flows from Earth to space. Interestingly, the models that best simulate the recent past of these energy exchanges between the planet and its surroundings tend to project greater-than-average warming in the future.
"Our results suggest that it doesn't make sense to dismiss the most-severe global warming projections based on the fact that climate models are imperfect in their simulation of the current climate," Brown said. "On the contrary, if anything, we are showing that model shortcomings can be used to dismiss the least-severe projections."
(Score: 3, Interesting) by fyngyrz on Friday December 08 2017, @06:21PM
Yes, it means that all the models show a rising temperature.
When the environment's temperature shows an actual rise, that's one thing. When a model shows it, then fails to predict into the future... that's another.
The thing about science is that the method is that you form an idea, then you test the idea and attempt to falsify it. When you skip those latter steps, you're really operating on guesswork, not doing mainstream science. If, and it's a big if, time proves you right, then that's great - but it's still not really science. It's guesswork that turned out to be correct. If I say, "when I throw this die, it's going to come up seven", and then I throw it, and it does, I wasn't doing science. I was doing guesswork.
These models are all dice throws. Some very clever dice throws, I'll grant, but still - dice throws. Until the die lands, and all the forces that come into play have done so, we won't know what the number is, except that it will be a number on the die.
Likewise with climate: There's a great deal that can happen between here and the predicted outcomes (and there are many.) Transition to EVs. Technological ameliorations. Changes in vegetation growth and density and carbon sequestration. Volcanic activity. Petroleum pricing changes. Artificial meats (a consequence of that might be less methane generation.) Forcings (or lack thereof) in the atmosphere that were missed, or calculated wrong. Etc.
Predicting the future is a tough game to play and get right. We've seen - many times over - models get things wrong. The weather models get things wrong. The climate models get things wrong. The voting models get things wrong. Too many variables, models that are (far) too simplistic.
The obvious thing, I think, is to aim for backing off on emissions and pollution just because that seems most likely to leave the planet in a state closest to what we're used to; and we know we survive reasonably well in that state. If we're careless, or simply not cautious enough, we may cause problems we (well, our descendants) can't deal with. If you care about our descendants, the smart moves seem fairly clear in the light of changing the nature of our environment.
But are we smart enough? I read the news, and I have to say... I don't think we are.