Right now climate science seems to suffer from confirmation bias, that is, people only remember the few predictions that have come true, and forget everything else, such as "Florida will be underwater" from the 00s or "we're all gonna freeze to death" from the 70s.
There is perverse incentive to come out with these outlandish claims, which on the one hand make it easier to get funding, and on the other imply no responsibility whatsoever, since the timeline is often decades in the future, and people's attention spans are short.
Maybe you could inform yourself a little better. There are various public sources of serious predictions (usually done with supercomputers) made more than a decade ago, some of which you can find in the IPCC report. You can compare that to the actual outcome and see if it falls within the set bounds of uncertainty. I bet pretty much every professional climate scientist has run this kind of analysis once.
...and on and on...
Not the best source, but from time to time this or that news site makes something like that, one I have bookmarked, JFYI:
"The *apparent* temperature peak during such humid-heat waves can be greater than 55 °C"
Apparent temperature (defined in http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0450%281979..., which isn't behind a paywall) can already be around 50 degrees Celsius if it is 32 degrees Celsius at 90% humidity (so, it is similar to wind chill factor (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_chill) or heat index (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_index), but not only compensates for physical effects, but also for physiological ones)
This is pop science in two ways:
* In that these were science articles knocked up to interest an audience in magazines like Newsweek with little to no scientific backing, and very few research publications. And only a handful of them at that.
* In that you have picked up this factoid, and passed it on, without checking its validity.
I deny your premise. These two predictions are two of the most remembered, precisely because they were mistaken and thus politically useful to the party in power in the US today.
> There is perverse incentive to come out with these outlandish claims...since the timeline is often decades in the future
Your aggregator proposal would do little to change the incentives. The reckoning would still be decades away, it would just be more convenient for the future fact-checkers.
On the flip side the proposed aggregator would also help to identify the scientists who are mostly right about things, even if their predictions might stray from the prevalent political dogma of the time.
That said, you're right that accountability is a hard problem. Case in point is Al Gore, a dude who was about as right in his predictions as a random number generator, yet continues to be considered as some sort of preeminent authority on the topic of global warming.
That sounds like claiming physics is rotten because cold fusion turned out to be unverifiable. "Those frauds, just trying to get grants to build their phony particle accelerators that don't actually do anything. Who ever saw a boson?"
Have you ever read a grant proposal?
All I'm proposing is to create a stronger feedback loop. I don't see why anyone, including the scientists, would be against that.
If anything, unless you are already a highly respected scholar, being frequently quoted by mainstream media has traditionally had negative consequences for your career. Google "sagan effect".
Also, need I remind you of the planet Venus. It once had liquid water. It later became a victim of runaway climate change.
The biggest effect of global warming so far is arguably positive. Plants are making good use of higher CO2 levels and it's estimated that farming yields have increased 30% in the last century from this faster plant growth.
I found the study: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/05/study-suggests-increa...
The article claims 30% increase in general (not just agricultural), but also does not attribute all that simply to more available CO2.
Your own claim is self-contradicting as you use arid environments as the basis for your claim. Agricultural environments where plants are irrigated are not arid, by definition.
Do you seriously not realize that the people who've been doing climate research for decades are aware that there were previous eras with more CO2 in them?
If you weren't just out to validate your own political goals, you might stop for a moment and reflect on how poorly-suited current life on the planet is for those previous eras with drastically more carbon in the air.
The economic incentives are too strong to follow the rules. It's like OPEC, whenever there's a "production cut" everybody just lowers their numbers and shifts product to the black market.
It's easy enough to throw some dust into the upper atmosphere to cool the planet a bit. Volcanoes do it all the time so we know it's safe and it works. I don't know why were still talking about the nearly impossible idea of getting everyone to abandon fuel when we could spend a miniscule fraction of the time and human effort to just launch some crap into the atmosphere.
Frankly, I don't think warming the planet a bit is a bad idea at all. The Earth is in an interglacial and without human interference most of our major cities are due to be covered in half a mile of ice in the next 2-100 thousand years. This sounds like a long time but besides nuclear war it's probably the biggest "near term" threat to our species.
Global warming is being conflated with people who don't want the environment being messed with. That's why all the proposed solution involve not using fossil fuels when its pretty easy to cool the Earth with other means if we really wanted to.
Also in that universe, there will also be a parallel project that will be executed on cloud instances. Rowhammer and other attacks, e.g. those based on undocumented CPU instructions, will be used.
One way or another, the AI virus will defend the planet. Of course there will be some collateral damage based on misclassifications, but that's the cost of humans not taking responsibility for the planet. However bad this virus may be, it will be heaven when compared to heatwaves of 55C.
Legal Disclaimer: These ideas are fictional and are not for this universe. I don't want idiot lawyers chasing me down for having an idea.