
Trump Administration Might “Re-Examine” Climate Modeling - okket
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-administration-might-re-examine-climate-modeling/
======
admiralspoo
Good. Climate models have huge uncertainties in their "subgrid physics",
particularly cloud formation.

Subgrids physics deal with microphysics the fluid models cannot capture. The
typical kilometer scale grids cannot capture physics and turbulence which
operates on tiny scales, "butterfly effect" and all that.

The standard way they deal with this uncertainty is by adding "hand tuned"
parameters which are back fit to earlier imperfect climate data. Then they
extrapolate to the future. But the physical basis of these terms is hand wavy
at best.

~~~
burfog
This sounds an awful lot like the problem of modelling the turbulent reacting
flow inside a rocket engine. SpaceX did some neat work on this and presented
it at a GPU conference. They did some unconventional things with the GPU,
allowing variable-resolution modeling. Previously, it had not been possible to
accurately model an engine because the scale required to cover the whole
engine could not express the detail of the microphysics.

~~~
swimfar
I remember that. Fluid dynamics is a very tricky thing to model and the work
they did was really cool. There's a good video presentation on it here:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYA0f6R5KAI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYA0f6R5KAI)

------
mempko
Here is my prediction. The new models will either agree with the old models or
show things are worse than IPCC reports. They will then bury and "Try Again".
Just like the koch funded study done by skeptic (now turned believer) Richard
Muller which confirmed the science. Woops

~~~
mentos
Unpopular question, what if we are keeping the next ice age at bay with
increased green house gasses? Are there any viewpoints where this is
considered beneficial?

~~~
taeric
This is somewhat nonsensical, though. We don't have evidence that we are
preventing a decline in temperatures. We have evidence that we are seeing a
rise in temperatures. Those are two very different things.

So, it is not that the question is unpopular. It just doesn't make sense. You
are begging the question that things could be worse under alternatives. The
plight is to improve the one we are in.

~~~
_red
>We have evidence that we are seeing a rise in temperatures

For the majority of the earths history, the poles have had no ice on them.
Their current existence is a holdover from our last ice-age.

Wouldn't it be rational to conclude that earth's temperatures are meandering
back to its natural state?

~~~
throw0101a
> _Wouldn 't it be rational to conclude that earth's temperatures are
> meandering back to its natural state?_

Perhaps, but it is a strange coïncidence then that they've been going up since
the Industrial Revolution, which also happens to be when humans started
releasing a whole bunch of carbon (a greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere.

It took a while for us to develop the science of climatology and then start
noticing natural climatic cycles as well as then noticing anthropomorphic
climate change (ACC):

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Terminology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Terminology)

Natural cyclic oscillations are known and have been taken into account:

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_decadal_oscillation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_decadal_oscillation) * [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation)

The possibility of being wrong is there, but here's the thing: if we're wrong
about ACC being real, then the worse that will happen is that we move towards
more efficient and renewal infrastructure (which isn't a bad thing in itself).
If we're right about ACC being real, and do something about it, then we (may)
save human civilization.

There's not much long-term downside to assuming ACC is real and doing
something about it.

~~~
_red
>then the worse that will happen

But that's not the "worse that will happen". Go tell a starving 3rd world
family that their $300 per month salary will now only buy $200 because you
decided its a "risk worth taking".

~~~
throw0101a
The carbon use of a family making $300/month is minimal and I would hazard to
guess any carbon pricing/capping scheme would effect them minimally.

* [https://www.mcc-berlin.net/en/news/information/information-d...](https://www.mcc-berlin.net/en/news/information/information-detail/article/climate-policy-reduces-inequality-in-lower-income-countries.html)

* [http://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2018/07/how-a-carbon-tax...](http://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2018/07/how-a-carbon-tax-could-fight-poverty-and-climate-change-at-the-same-time/)

