

Climate Predictions: Worst-Case May Be Most Accurate, Study Finds - brianchu
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/11/121108-climate-change-clouds-science-model-relative-humidity/

======
rayiner
I feel like when we see estimates of 2-5C warmer global temperatures, people
fail to appreciate how monumentally dramatic the difference is.

For reference, during the last ice age, global temperatures were 5C colder
than today. At that time, Chicago was under two miles of ice.

~~~
rdl
At some point, if this becomes clearly inevitable, I'm hoping large-scale
geoengineering happens. It would be awesome to be able to personally finance
it, and from what I've seen, it would be in the hundreds of millions of
dollars, so a bunch of families could individually, or even a kickstarter
circa 2025.

~~~
AJ007
In The Vanishing Face of Gaia James Lovelock theorizes that geoengineering
would trigger a cascading effect of problems, much like a a sick patient on an
ever increasing regimen of prescription medications, each solving one problem
while causing three. While other portions of the book are questionable, I tend
to agree with this analogy.

The best case would be for the environment to re-balance itself -- of course,
human cause or not, our environment is not static and is destined to continual
change.

Unfortunately James Lovelock's worst case scenario is an earth which is
capable of producing enough food to support single digit percentages of the
world's current population. That is a pretty brutal death sentence for the
current state of human civilization.

~~~
rdl
There are changes humans make to the environment which do make it better (at
least for humans) -- building dams on rivers which otherwise flood
periodically, culling wood and undergrowth to keep large-scale forest fires
from happening, etc. There are environmental costs to each of those, but the
benefits (direct and economic) far outweigh them, and stuff like salmon
ladders, helicopter transport, etc. can deal with some of the harm.

The best long-term outcome for humanity is to use capitalism and
science/technology to generate as much wealth as possible AND do as little
damage to the environment as possible, but I think the "have a much lighter
footprint and generate less wealth" option is off the table -- it's not going
to be acceptable to generate less wealth than we have now, so really the most
favorable outcome is to try to scale the wealth generation up faster than the
harm done, and then use some wealth to ameliorate specific severe problems.

~~~
waterlesscloud
I agree that "generate less wealth" is a non-starter. Any political efforts
down that road are wasting time, in my opinion. And if you think this is an
important issue, why waste time on something that's not going to happen?

It does seem likely we can have a somewhat lighter footprint, or at least a
more efficient one. The problem that lurks down that path is that if energy
became more efficient it's possible people will just use more to do more, and
the end result stays the same or even increases.

So I do think things like geoengineering and adapting to the changes have to
be on the table. It's getting to a point where it seems irresponsible to not
be exploring those options more fully.

------
patrickgzill
We were told back in the late 1980s and early 1990s that huge computer models
were written, that ran on supercomputers, to model and predict climate change.

The fastest Cray in 1990 could do (I think) 60 GFlops when loaded with 32
processors, which is roughly the sustained GFlops as a high end i7.

So clearly it is not a case of "just need a faster supercomputer and we will
have an accurate prediction".

Reality is, from what I can tell, is that _we don't have an accurate
mathematical model of all the pieces that go into global climate_ to run on a
supercomputer, no matter how powerful.

~~~
oscilloscope
We don't even have a particularly good data model. If you're interested in the
water cycle, you'll have to construct that data from dozens of agencies in
hundreds of governments.

If the data was collected, linked together and published in an accessible
form, more people could experiment with statistics, machine learning and
visualization. Right now the data is in labyrinthine web forms, SOAP services,
XLS files, GIS systems, etc. The barrier to entry needs to be lower.

------
waterlesscloud
I'm always cautious of the models as you get to the more extreme cases. To me
it seems likely that as you get further and further from the current state
that there are unknown factors lurking somewhere.

Those factors may represent positive feedback, they may be negative feedback,
or they may not exist at all.

But to me the further into the unknown we go, the further into the unknown we
are, if that makes sense.

To be absolutely clear, I think the models probably work well enough for the
near range. It's the far ranges I wonder about.

------
droithomme
I like the part where they say that actual observed data is unreliable so
they'll use a made up model instead to prove their claims.

> "Satellite observations of clouds are sketchy, and contain errors."

~~~
jws
You mean the part where they built their model off the accurately measurable
water vapor content instead of building it off of the ambiguous reflectivity?

[Edit: ok, let's not all pile on.]

------
drivebyacct2
I swear there is a common denominator between the dissonance that allows
people to find any tiny thing they can to confirm their beliefs even the in
the face of growing and yet already insurmountable evidence. For years climate
change skeptics held on to one or two prominent scientists who disagreed.
They've both recanted and apologized and urged a reexamination of the science,
yet doubters just latched onto something else. Or, in the case of droithomme,
find some half-invented ad hominem attack to use to dismiss the ENTIRE body of
science on the issue.

It's the same people that swore to me, up and down, bet me and made foolish
statements that Romney was going to have some magic emotional boost and that
Nate Silver was the devil working for the liberals and that his numbers were
"wrong".

That you don't like the facts or that they don't fit with your world view does
nothing to make them any less true.

~~~
guscost
You seem to be fond of exaggeration.

~~~
drivebyacct2
Oh! No wonder you're trolling me. After a glance at your comments, I
accidentally nailed you spot on for both global warming and Nate Silver
without even realizing your last page of comments is denial of both!

I don't know why you're calling me names. I made a single comment that had to
do with the actual issue of global warming and now that's grounds for me being
a climate change zealot? I'll ask you again, do you realize that dismissing
science as zealotry with no actual evidence or argument makes your position
look less legitimate?

~~~
guscost
You're also a zealot.

I care a lot about science - it distills reason by holding it accountable to
observed reality. I dismiss your offensive reaction to alternative viewpoints.
That should be obvious.

~~~
drivebyacct2
_You haven't offered an alternative viewpoint._ You've literally been nothing
but dismissive and insulting.

I'm tiring of repeating myself and I feel like I'm spamming. This is all I'll
say unless you are interested in articulating yourself.

~~~
guscost
It's very simple: I don't like how you react to this study as if it is
irrefutable evidence that the most dire projections will be accurate. I don't
like how you dismiss the minority as if the consensus has never been wrong
before. I'm not going to go through the litany of hockey stick criticism with
yet another alarmist, but read this book if you want details about my
viewpoint: <http://www.bishop-hill.net/hiding-the-decline/>

I doubt you respect this debate enough to bother, but then I won't be reading
the next IPCC report either.

~~~
drivebyacct2
I never claimed it was fact. What is this, "evolution is not a fact!!!!11111"?

My point was not that consensus = correct. As someone who got to count many
firsts for fellow LGBT people on Tuesday, I know that the majority is not
always right. My point is very different. There are people who think that they
have an opinion and that their opinion is as good as a hypothesis that is the
result of data, research and people that are frankly smarter than them.

I'll again ask you, but this time in a more pointed manner. Do you have an
alternative _viewpoint_ about global warming and this article... or do you
have alternative _SCIENCE_ about global warming and this article?

You must have different data or analysis given your vehement denial of global
warming... but I would have assumed you would have offered it before your 5th
post in this thread. That's literally all I've been asking for from you. WHY
do you not believe this article? Is that so much to ask?

edit: I see that you finally offered a single scratch of something that I can
go look into. About the laziest way of engaging in a conversation, but at
least it's something. I don't know why you're again insulting and dismissing
me with that last sentence, I've literally been asking for this from the get-
go and you're the one that held out.

------
guscost
I don't trust this study, because I don't trust National Geographic with
regard to this issue. Go ahead and shame the disbeliever, I'm used to it.

~~~
drivebyacct2
You know, when you come by, write a controversial one-line dismissal of an
article, mock anyone who might disagree or even just wonder why you feel that
way, and offer NO explanation or reasoning.... that is called trolling. The
name-calling and accusations elsewhere are just further evidence.

