Rut Roh.... for the climate

[woodgeek]

Here is a wonky video about climate modeling, that suggests that global warming projections currently in use may be much too optimistic.



The issue here is a model parameter called the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), which is the temp rise you would expect after long periods of time if you doubled the historical amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Paleo data and climate models generally agree and put this figure at 3±1°C. Obviously a higher number is worse for humans... bc it predicts a hotter climate in 2100 and a more rapidly warming climate in the near future.

Video is about so-called 'hot models'. A new generation of climate models that predict an ECS of >5. Apparently they have better cloud physics.

But but... doesn't science proceed by refining numbers and having them always stay within their (gradually shrinking over time) error bars? Nope. Many parameters will jump out of error bounds as new methods and measurements occur. Like cosmological parameters, the lifetime of subatomic particles, etc.

Right now, the IPCC has decided to ignore (or de-weight) the hot models, just because they are outliers. But this may be an indication that 10 years from now we may need to revise our global warming predictions upward by close to a factor of TWO.

 

[stoveliker]

She (her videos, that is) make me cringe.
I don't know enough about the actual modeling of climate, but do know other things she sometimes talks about (quantum computing, condensed matter) - and in such cases often she very clearly shows she does not know what she is talking about.

I think she should stay with particle physics - of which I don't know enough, so maybe she's great there.
I do note that she started her publicity career by criticizing (and sometimes being overly harsh in doing so, though in her defense sometimes that's needed to shake things loose) particle physics.

Regarding parameters; they indeed do not always appear to converge, but I think this is mostly when new *models* are introduced.
Measurements do change the expectation value ("average"), and given that the uncertainty range is a finite (not 100%) probability range, new expectation values will result in some parameters suddenly being out of these confidence intervals. But this is often minor/incremental.
When new data (measurements), sometimes based on new (experimental) methods, result in new (parts of) models - then large jumps in expectation values occur.

So, yes science progresses by (mostly) incrementally improving models - but that improvement does not produce a monotonous function of expectation values of parameters towards the final "established" correct value.

It is these things ("coffee is good for you --> new model --> coffee is not good for you") that are hard to explain, and that create doubt in society about the efficacy of science. Unfortunately rather than trying to explain these things, media often amplifies that doubt.

 

[Highbeam]

It is these things ("coffee is good for you --> new model --> coffee is not good for you") that are hard to explain, and that create doubt in society about the efficacy of science. Unfortunately rather than trying to explain these things, media often amplifies that doubt.

I think it's the psychological impact of "moving the goalposts" that bothers so many people. Then, political agendas are present. Accepting these harsher projections would probably lose more followers than it would add so the harsher projections are de-weighted.

 

[begreen]

I think it's the psychological impact of "moving the goalposts" that bothers so many people. Then, political agendas are present. Accepting these harsher projections would probably lose more followers than it would add so the harsher projections are de-weighted.

I think you've both hit the nail on the head. Climatologists tend to understate their predictions to avoid getting marginalized. Meanwhile we have just gone through the warmest winter on record in the US and the Atlantic thermocline is acting wonky. But how about those Oscars?

 

[woodgeek]

She (her videos, that is) make me cringe.
I don't know enough about the actual modeling of climate, but do know other things she sometimes talks about (quantum computing, condensed matter) - and in such cases often she very clearly shows she does not know what she is talking about.

You put it well. This is IMO a physicist problem... lots of physicists will not stay in their lane and then pontificate about things outside their expertise. (possibly including yours truly ) This goes all the way up to the APS (american physical society) that takes stances on climate and public policy that in my experience are mind-boggling for their carelessness and hubris.

I am not a big fan of Sabine, but I do think she can read a sample of peer reviewed papers and synopsize them better than your average journalist. Which is what she is doing here. She also appears to be thinking pretty deeply about the culture of science and its failures, which IMO makes her a 'white hat' unlike many of the worst blowhards at APS.

 

[woodgeek]

I think it's the psychological impact of "moving the goalposts" that bothers so many people. Then, political agendas are present. Accepting these harsher projections would probably lose more followers than it would add so the harsher projections are de-weighted.

Huh, not sure why this bothers me. IMO there is a 'right answer' that science (jerkily) works towards, and I do think that most individual researchers have little agenda.

That said, this is less true of climate science. When some scientists are getting doxxed and arrested for their opinions, it will tend to give them an agenda.

AS for the IPCC, I suspect they are just deweighting outliers as a (dumb) standard operating procedure. And then at a future date they will go 'aha' and switch and it will be a mess. If the hot models don't go away in the meantime. There are may examples of such things.

Where **I** see a political conspiracy is animal agriculture. I think most researchers would agree that current beef/lamb production is not compatible with a livable future climate, and there is no plausible tech fix for that on the horizon. But it has been collectively decided that THAT is so politically unpopular that they are simply not talking about it.

So maybe if I think the IPCC can bury that, then maybe you're right and they are doing the same with the hot models.

 

[stoveliker]

You put it well. This is IMO a physicist problem... lots of physicists will not stay in their lane and then pontificate about things outside their expertise. (possibly including yours truly )

Yes, this is the infamous physicist arrogance. I recognize that - both as a MatSci undergrad that went into Physics and had to conclude that physicists do not know everything despite their assertions to that effect, and in recognizing that I now too suffer from that a bit nearing the 20 year mark after my PhD... 🤷‍♂️

This goes all the way up to the APS (american physical society) that takes stances on climate and public policy that in my experience are mind-boggling for their carelessness and hubris.

I concur. While climate change is a legitimate subject (as it involves a lot of physics), public policy is better decided by others. In fact, it is my view scientists should provide facts, and potential consequences of those facts, and leave the societal decisions to others. Decisions should be based on much more than the scientific facts alone.
Inform and educate (full stop).
Scientists may on their personal recognizance voice opinions on decisions, but the APS should not. (Let alone on political hot-button items that have not much to do with physics...)
This is my personal opinion

I am not a big fan of Sabine, but I do think she can read a sample of peer reviewed papers and synopsize them better than your average journalist.

Maybe. Though in the subject areas I mentioned above, I was similarly mind-boggled for her erroneous statements (and hence carelessness).

Which is what she is doing here. She also appears to be thinking pretty deeply about the culture of science and its failures, which IMO makes her a 'white hat' unlike many of the worst blowhards at APS.

Yes. She operates now at the intersection of science and policy, science and the culture of the humans active in science, and science and society. Personal opinions (even opinion leaders) are welcome there.
But opinion leaders that are wrong loose credibility among those who have detailed knowledge soon. And that results in "another opinion contrary to scientific fact" - of which we have enough.
That is the danger of opinion producers that appear to provide such opinions from scientific knowledge, when they may not have sufficient scientific knowledge in that area.

Anyway, I've stopped watching her since a while, and I was not convinced to reverse that after watching the video you posted.

 

[EbS-P]

My informed amateur opinion is that we are going to have to bust our butts to keep it under 3c and that there is no political will in the US to do so. Air capture isn’t going to save us. And anyone flat writing off geo engineering is to narrow sighted.

Generally anything that has appeal to those who advanced science degrees it so far beyond the general public to be of no use to them. I applaud anyone who tries to make inroads.

 

[woodgeek]

My informed amateur opinion is that we are going to have to bust our butts to keep it under 3c and that there is no political will in the US to do so. Air capture isn’t going to save us. And anyone flat writing off geo engineering is to narrow sighted.

Generally anything that has appeal to those who advanced science degrees it so far beyond the general public to be of no use to them. I applaud anyone who tries to make inroads.

My also amateur opinion is that learning curves, such as solar and battery costs, will accelerate relative to projections (good!) and some emissions will be harder to eliminate, such as US beef or chinese coal, relative to projections (bad!).

I also don't worry about 'tipping points' and non-linearities.

I kinda assume the two will cancel each other out and get us to 2°C more or less. Similar to Paris goals. And not too bad re carbon capture.

My opinions were colored by a decreasing ECS over time. It used to be closer to 4 or higher. But if better models are jumping the value to 5+, then I will have to adjust my expectations again. If the hot models hold up, I think we are closer to 3+°C and we will need more geoengineering and CO2 capture.

 

[woodgeek]

Anyway, I've stopped watching her since a while, and I was not convinced to reverse that after watching the video you posted.

I will take this under advisement.

 

[stoveliker]

I also don't worry about 'tipping points' and non-linearities.

I kinda assume the two will cancel each other out and get us to 2°C more or less. Similar to Paris goals. And not too bad re carbon capture.

This is the engineering approach (see my MatSci engr degree; including welding, casting metal, polymer extrusion, inorganic chemistry (batteries) etc.) - *know what you can neglect and know the resulting safety margins of that approach*. This is different from the spherical cows that physicists like to study. But it is highly useful in complex situations. Though one does need a semiquantitative justification for such neglecting of issues, and in a complex system as climate modeling, I'm not sure such justification can be obtained...

 

[woodgeek]

This is the engineering approach (see my MatSci engr degree; including welding, casting metal, polymer extrusion, inorganic chemistry (batteries) etc.) - *know what you can neglect and know the resulting safety margins of that approach*. This is different from the spherical cows that physicists like to study. But it is highly useful in complex situations. Though one does need a semiquantitative justification for such neglecting of issues, and in a complex system as climate modeling, I'm not sure such justification can be obtained...

You're correct. As for my idea that the downward trend of the ECS was significant and might continue, that is an indefensible cognitive bias. The idea that learning curves are often faster than predicted... lot's of data on that. The idea that some emissions will be sticky... that seems born out by historical data and things like the long lived built environment.

That I don't worry about about tipping points? That is bc I have never seen anything remotely scientific that argues that they are an issue. People identify positive feedback loops, but the radiative forcing itself is very sub linear (due to saturation of the absorption lines). It would take waaay more positive feedback to overcome that. And there doesn't seem to be much in the paleo record to suggest that.

In terms of ecology there are tipping points... like beetle kill and fires, coral bleaching. Extinction is real and I will make no excuses for it. But I also think that people born into an impoverished world (as our already is) won't know (or much care) what they are missing. When i was a kid, I could go outside and grab an amphibian in 5 minutes in my suburban yard. My kids have never encountered a toad or frog in our giant and wet yard.

 

[woodgeek]

A rebuttal for anyone who cares:

 

[Eman85]

Does anyone really believe we are going to somehow take any of this seriously and do anything that would take any of our comforts away?

 

[woodgeek]

Does anyone really believe we are going to somehow take any of this seriously and do anything that would take any of our comforts away?

That would depend on the definition of 'seriously' and 'comforts'.

 

[Eman85]

There's no serious attempts at changing anything, never will be it's all theater. There's no cutting back on air travel, rail transportation or cargo ships, no mention of their effects either. We in the US like our lifestyle and the rest of the world wants it too. We like our politicians that promote the use of energy and less regulations, as Reagan said the energy policy should be to use more energy.

 

[woodgeek]

There's no serious attempts at changing anything, never will be it's all theater. There's no cutting back on air travel, rail transportation or cargo ships, no mention of their effects either. We in the US like our lifestyle and the rest of the world wants it too. We like our politicians that promote the use of energy and less regulations, as Reagan said the energy policy should be to use more energy.

Huh. There are different philosophies at work. In one, we need 'degrowth'. We need to reduce our energy use dramatically to avoid global warming impacts. In another, we need to 'decarbonize' the economy, changing how we produce energy and how we obtain energy services (like transportation) to be more efficient.

Both 'sides' have pros and cons:

Degrowth: Pro: no new technology required. Con: Very few people are willing to do it.
Decarbonize: Pro: many (but not all) folks are willing to do it. Con: New technology needs to be developed and deployed at scale. And needs to be better/cheaper to get high adoption.

Successes: The electricity production sector in the US and globally has moved successfully to lower carbon intensity. Further reductions appear feasible with existing Solar, Wind and Battery (SWB) tech. Electrification of HVAC, transportation and many industries appears technically feasible.

Failures: Several high emission things like aviation, global shipping, some heavy materials, and beef production do not look amenable to tech reduction of emissions at this time. Together, these could still wreck the climate, just much more slowly that what we are doing now. Will we need to pursue a 'degrowth' rather than decarbonization strategy with these? I dunno.

 

[Eman85]

https://www.npr.org/2024/03/13/1237962030/climate-emissions-methane

Or we could just make believe

 

[stoveliker]

methane emissions are only thought to be good for 1/3 of the global temperature rise.
So believe it or not, CO2 emissions are (also) in need of addressing.

 

[begreen]

In spite of all the agreements and pacts, 2023 set a record for measured methane emissions. A big contributor was an unchecked major leak from a well in Kazakhstan. With new satellite monitoring, maybe international pressure will be greater to reduce these emissions.

 

[vinny11950]

Electricity consumption has increased a lot because of computer data centers used for Cloud computing, AI, crypto and whatever other computer use that is coming online.

And it's only going to get worse. AI learns by storing and analyzing data. This can include everything from your personal pictures on the cloud to your movements tracked by your cell phone. All the websites you visit and how you move and shop. All this information has to be stored and analyzed for it to have any value to whatever organization wants to profit from it.

Then think of self-driving vehicles. More real time data from cars on the road that has to processed and stored.

The amount of data that can be created by all this tracking and learning is huge. And since companies are at the beginning stages of the AI craze, they are trying to collect data on anything they can get their hands on so they can figure out how to monetize it.

We are in big trouble. Google Atlantic ocean temps. No bueno.

 

[begreen]

My informed amateur opinion is that we are going to have to bust our butts to keep it under 3c and that there is no political will in the US to do so. Air capture isn’t going to save us. And anyone flat writing off geo engineering is to narrow sighted.

Generally anything that has appeal to those who advanced science degrees it so far beyond the general public to be of no use to them. I applaud anyone who tries to make inroads.

We're doing a lousy job of keeping global warming under control.
"Each of the last 10 months ranked as the world's hottest on record, compared with the corresponding month in previous years, the EU's Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) said in a monthly bulletin."

March marks yet another record in global heat

The world just experienced its warmest March on record, capping a 10-month streak in which every month set a new temperature record, the European Union's climate change monitoring service said on Tuesday.

www.reuters.com