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: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @07:12PM (1 child)
What struck me as funny is how badly you misread the summary.
The researchers investigated existing models, not updated models
Their investigate shows that the models with the highest predictions did the best job of simulating the recent past tend to project more warming than the average of the whole set of models
The predictions you should be least trusting of are the most optimistic one
In other words, you distrust this because it disagrees with what you want to believe not because of any understanding on your part.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Friday December 08 2017, @10:05PM
Directly from TFS:
So: existing models + new inputs = existing models, updated. You can't even have a model without data.
I don't agree with any unconfirmed model. Models are models, they may be right, they may not. It may warm as the models indicate, it may not. Until it does, or doesn't, we won't know. Because that's how actual science works when all you have are vastly simplified models, which is precisely the case with climate prediction.
My position is that we ought to reduce our greenhouse gas and pollution outputs just out of common sense – we're adapted to the environment we have, and changing its composition significantly seems like a very bad idea to me. We might be able to adapt to change, and we might not: I'd prefer not to test that, frankly.
Other than that, you can play with numbers all you want; it's not settled science until there's proof, and as it hasn't happened yet, there isn't any. Period.