SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the removing-hot-air-from-climate-debate dept.
Carbonbrief.org is reporting on a new paper published today in the journal 'Nature.'
Claims that Climate Models Overestimate Warming are "Unfounded", Study Shows
The abstract is located here.
A new paper takes an in-depth look at the suggestion that climate models routinely overestimate the speed at which Earth's surface is warming - and finds the argument lacking.
A look back over the past century shows that, by and large, what we see in global average temperature is extremely well captured by models, the authors tell Carbon Brief.
The new research, a collaboration between scientists at the Max Planck Institute in Germany and the University of Leeds, is published today in the journal Nature.
They go on to note:
The past 15 years has received a fair bit of attention. It's notable that 14 of those years topped the charts as the warmest on record. But the difference between individual years has been slight, meaning the earth's surface has risen a fair bit slower than in previous decades.
... it's worth remembering that we're talking here about surface temperature, not the globe as a whole, says lead author Prof Jochem Marotzke from the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Germany. He tells us:
"[Surface temperature is] the temperature of a very thin layer of the climate system. Anthropogenic climate change has continued, it's just not so visible in the surface ... It's clearly visible if you look at the heat stored in the ocean, which has kept going during these 15 years. So climate change is continuing, even though surface warming has slowed down quite a bit."
[...]So what causes real-world temperatures to diverge from the models over periods as short as 15 years? That's down to natural fluctuations that temporarily boost or dampen the speed of warming, such as the global weather phenomenon known as El Niño, the paper notes.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by wantkitteh on Monday February 02 2015, @05:20AM
Accuracy of long-term models depends on how detailed they are. In the case of the worldwide climate, there's an entire planet of factors that need to be considered to produce an accurate model. The fact that these models are revised to take into account newly discovered effects in accordance with good scientific practice has so far done little to suggest the early predictions weren't roughly correct. Climate research is a field of on-going scientific interest, claiming that developing that field is moving the goalposts is disingenuous and a good example of applying a standard that simply isn't appropriate.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by steveha on Monday February 02 2015, @05:38AM
In the past the Earth has been cooler than it is now. It has also been warmer than it is now.
Right now, there has been warming, but there are not any actual problems caused by it. Some famous people have made wild claims that there are more tornados now or something but it's not true.
So why then are we worried about warming? Because the models show that in the near future, warming will get really bad.
Okay then, can we trust those models? The only useful test is whether a model has predicted the future successfully. The models are built on historical data... if you feed a model the data through 1960 and then see what it predicts for 1970 and 1980, you can check its predictions against historical data and tweak it until it works right. In short, you can make a model draw the curve that history recorded. But that proves nothing about the actual PREDICTIVE power of the model.
And it turns out that every one of the models from 15 years ago, all of them, predicted more warming than actually occurred. We are now outside the 95% confidence interval.
Given all of the above, why should we believe that the models correctly predict the future?
P.S. But carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas! It makes the Earth get warmer! This is Science!
True, but the models go far beyond that. The current atmospheric content of carbon dioxide is already trapping almost all of the heat it can. It will take a lot more carbon dioxide to trap even a little more heat.
Then why do the models predict dangerous heat? Feedbacks. They predict that as the warming increases, stuff happens that increases the warming, positive feedback. Like, warming increases water vapor in the air, water vapor traps more heat causing more warming. That sort of thing.
It seems likely to me that the models overestimated the warming because they don't have the feedbacks right. And since they don't have the feedbacks right, they have very little utility in predicting the exact amount of future warming. It could be that global warming will not be a problem at all and the models are just wrong.
So before I see carbon taxes that take trillions of dollars out of the global economy, doing actual (economic) harm to actual people, I want more confidence in the models.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and the models aren't cutting it even as ordinary proof.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by atan on Monday February 02 2015, @09:31AM
Where is your evidence that a zero carbon economy would take trillions out of the economy? That's completely counterintuitive. Capital investment in infrastructure and new technology would most likely lead to significant returns and job creation, as it always has. There are, of course, other benefits from moving away from the increasingly volatile (and ultimately limited) fossil fuel driven economy. That is unless you have a significant stake in fossil fuels or the defence industry.
(Score: 1) by BK on Monday February 02 2015, @05:34PM
GP doesn't allege to be a "scientist", but does point out that to the extent that falsifiable claims have been made by climate "scientists", they seem to have been consistently falsified. In lay terms, they've fucked it up over and over. He suggests that acting on falsified hypotheses is unlikely to be the wisest course. Certainly, it's not the scientific choice.
Your post is about social and economic theory. And you're right, there are people with a vested interest in keeping some things how there are. But honesty should compel an admission that alternatives just produce a different set of winners and losers. Maybe you think you'll be one of the winners?
Here's a hint that may discourage you: The 1% already own the infrastructure for the other system. You'll still be near the bottom unless you're already at the top. Just sayin'.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 1) by steveha on Friday February 06 2015, @01:52AM
Where is your evidence that a zero carbon economy would take trillions out of the economy?
The whole point of a carbon tax is to make carbon-based fuels more expensive. Currently our economy runs on carbon-based fuels. Carbon taxes would make gasoline, diesel, coal, and even natural gas more expensive than they are now... that's the whole point of a carbon tax. The direct follow-in is that shipping is more expensive, food is more expensive, travel is more expensive, and (for most people) heating your home during winter is more expensive. These are real costs that will be paid by real people.
In November 2014, two Democratic Senators introduced a bill to institute a carbon tax in the USA. They claimed it would raise $2 trillion in tax revenues over ten years. I was claiming "trillions" world-wide; clearly the USA is part of the world, so if the USA had a $2 trillion carbon tax, I have trivially shown by example that carbon taxes could cost trillions. http://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/release/sens-whitehouse-and-schatz-introduce-carbon-fee-legislation [senate.gov]
Now they, and you, are likely to claim "but after the taxes take the money, the government will give back the money." But the burden is on you to show that the harm caused by the taxes would be adequately mitigated by government spending.
Capital investment in infrastructure and new technology would most likely lead to significant returns and job creation, as it always has.
However, investment in reducing carbon dioxide means investment cannot be put into other areas which may prove more beneficial: improving health care, reducing pollution (I am not granting carbon dioxide the status of "pollution" yet; I'm unconvinced), finding a cure for AIDS or cancer or whatever. Yes, if we tax carbon dioxide, there will be some people who benefit. I'm claiming that the disruption to the economy caused by taxing people to the tune of trillions of dollars will not be adequately mitigated by a few people getting jobs working on carbon dioxide technology. And I ask you to consider the Parable of the Broken Window [wikipedia.org].
One more simple example. In the past decade the cost of gasoline and diesel went up significantly. Since food travels on trucks, which run on diesel, the cost of food [marketwatch.com] went up as well. Every single family has a tougher time paying for food as a result. That's an example of what I'm calling "economic harm" and it's very difficult for government to fix it... and capital investment in infrastructure sure won't fix it. It's pretty much impossible to find all the people who were harmed by rising prices and make them whole; any attempt to do so will have winners and losers. In the case of a carbon tax, I argue this harm isn't worth the benefits, because the main benefit is "we don't all die when the world gets too hot" and this benefit hasn't been adequately proven.
There are, of course, other benefits from moving away from the increasingly volatile (and ultimately limited) fossil fuel driven economy.
To the extent that these benefits are real, people will move away from fossil fuels anyway, on their own. I very much want a Tesla car, and once they become more affordable, I might buy one. But you cannot claim that the awesomeness of Teslas is an example of a benefit of taxing carbon dioxide.
Another thing: I pretty much hate coal, so you could tell me "carbon taxes will help put coal out of business." But if that's the goal, let's make it a tax on actual pollutants like coal ash and not on carbon dioxide.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 02 2015, @06:06AM
Second, if the models are wrong now, they may be wrong about the period of time 1970-2000 as well which is a period of pronounced warming. By this, I don't mean that AGW didn't happen. To the contrary, I do believe AGW is happening, but the same alleged short term fluctuations which are supposedly throwing off models now, maybe should have throw them off then as well. In other words, they are design to fit past data pretty well. But if that data includes a climate fluctuation effect that the model doesn't capture, then the model is incorporating an error that will make its future predictions, including long term predictions, worse.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Pav on Monday February 02 2015, @09:55AM
They can't make short term predictions so their long term predictions are invalid? Eh??? How come I can be miserable at predicting the outcome of the next round of roulette, and yet make a long term prediction that the player will lose all their money? Perhaps if I had a better grasp of the microscopic physical properties of the ball, wheel etc... I could perhaps make more accurate short term predictions, but I suspect my long term prediction will be just as valid. How about if that next cigarette will give you cancer? Looking at the longer term often eliminates the need for short term complications.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 02 2015, @07:19PM
They can't make short term predictions so their long term predictions are invalid?
Short term is still at least decade-scale. And yes, that is a good indication that long term trends are bad as well.
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Tuesday February 03 2015, @04:48PM
A decade is not short term and no, it says nothing about long term trends. I would suggest taking some statistics classes, but a troll like you doesn't want to understand, do you?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 04 2015, @06:19AM