iai.tv/articles/we-still-dont-understand-climate-change-auid-2843?_auid=2020
Why climate scientists didn’t see the 2023 heatwave coming
The post title is clickbait, but I don't think you read the article.
The scientist being interviewed says that we still cannot predict global climate (lets call it average weather) with an accuracy he thinks is warranted.
Interestingly he says this is a great application in which AI is helping more and more.
It was a strong El Nino year on top of global warming. Pretty much everyone was expecting record heat in 2023.
Not to the extent that occurred
Yes, and there are lots of climate models that take all these things and more into account and project what the increase will be. They can't be perfectly accurate so they calculate ranges (max and min increase). The actual temps for the past year have been far outside anything any of the models predicted, even beyond the max. So there's something else going on that scientists don't understand yet.
The system is so complex. This is one area where I absolutely support large model AI being used to help the models.
Oh Dear. AI need to be teached. *Irony* we need a large number of planets to help AI learn what to expect.
They have telling us since the 1800s. What a stupid perspective.
The post title is clickbait, but I don't think you read the article.
The scientist being interviewed says that we still cannot predict global climate (lets call it average weather) with an accuracy he thinks is warranted.
Interestingly he says this is a great application in which AI is helping more and more
With all the resistance populations have had towards science, I don’t blame them for not forecasting what appears to be quite obvious. Everyone keeps screaming that we are living on a planet that is getting hotter, it’s quite obvious that we are venturing into unknown territory. The fact that populations are mandating CC be eradicated from law language proves that point. There might not be a hell, but some are bent on it becoming a reality on our home planet.
No you are missing the point, the author is saying the tech is still not developed to forecast the entire global climate (average weather) an entire year out.
Of course the scientist myself and yourself agree that climate change is an emergency, but the article is more of a "here is why we couldn't predict it was going to be the hottest year".
They are simply not at the point yet where they can accurately predict "next year will be the 2nd hottest or 5th hottest" or whatever.
Because I guarantee we are getting minimum 1 year of a little retrace, nothing goes up in a straight line, but we cannot forecast what that line looks like yet, that is the point of the article.
Ok. But what gets me is that CC deniers use something like this as an excuse not to trust the science. Even with our current technology we can only analyze the shit out of what we’ve seen recently, with no satellite data from the last ice age to compare it to. I am encouraged that we do have so much data gathering going forward, I’m just kinda scared to know the answers.
Yayaya totally ten billion percent agree, this kind of stuff is like rocket fuel for climate deniers. No nuance, just either idiocy, culture war bullshit, or paid shilling. Yes I get you. Here we had to have like a thousand word conversation on this one point, if we were talking to climate denier they would have thrown out 100 different points to debunk lmao.
NONSENSE and MISLEADING TITLE !!!
Scientists have been screaming about it for 50 years, and IPCC reports are good fit... if anything they were a bit conservative, because they underestimated how Sulfur particulates from shipping fuel were increasing cloud cover over north Atlantic and exerting a cooling effect . which, now that its removed explains recent speedup of warming.
Jim Hansens recent comment paper on this, is a pretty compelling read, with some impressive charts : http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2024/MayEmail.2024.05.16.pdf
We understand climate pretty damn well, the models are pretty close.. and we have a very plausible explanation of recent speedup.
Its absolutely clear we need two actions at the same time :
kill off fossil/carbon fuels as fast as possible - replace with wind, solar, geothermal, batteries, heat storage etc
use SRM to increase cloud cover over oceans, thus reduce heat absorption, thus exert cooling effect [ we were doing this with shipping fuel, but stopped .. which explains why its now happter than expected ]
Keep in mind, reaching net-zero means weve stopped putting more CO2 up there .. which means its at a max, and it stays for a long time.. which means weve reached a plateau of max heat.. ballpark +2.5C by 2045. That heat will just keep killing us - crop deaths, ice melt, hyper storms, uber-floods, heatwave deaths etc
We cant wait until net-zero .. its already bad enough, and its getting hotter fast. We need to urgently bring down the heat .. even as we bring down emissions.
I don't know much about SRM. I suppose if the tech is garunteed short lived and will dissipate then it's safe. We should start looking into this to develop safe technologies rather than dangerous ones.
Literally everyone has been seeing it coming for 40 years or more.
Giant undersea volcano eruption in 2022 that added an additional 10% water vapour into the atmosphere? The substance that makes of 98% of "greenhouse gas" may trap heat for a while, maybe?
Which the science shows will increase global temperatures by 0.05C over the next 5-6 years. Interesting but pretty insignificant.
"Science shows". The extreme hubris is why bad science survives for so long.
Who has extreme pride and what bad science are you talking about?
They predict that it will take 5-10 years before it comes back to normal.
And why isn't this event/ impact trumpeted from the alarmist media? Truth is SO inconvenient.
Hunga Tonga.
But no one wants to talk about the fact that nature itself contributes exponentially more greenhouse gases than Humans.
I like it when people misuse the word "exponentially". You can immediately tell who didn't comprehend high school math.
One off event versus continuous daily emissions for centuries....
okay, let's talk about it. Start with some actual data and not just an assertion pulled from your worm-infested rectum.
But no one wants to talk about the fact that nature itself contributes exponentially more greenhouse gases than Humans.
Dude, scientists hashed out the contributions of H20 in the early 1900s. They knew about the effects of CO2 in the late 1800s, but they didn't know whether it was swamped out by H2O. And they spent most of 1900-1950 sorting that out.
Saying "no one wants to talk about" an issue that scientists hashed out before you were born makes you just look ignorant.
Like, is it too much to ask that the "skeptics" bother to learn about the background material here before you act like know-it-alls?
If you feel the claim made by this post needs to be fact-checked, please 1) copy the link on this page and 2) click here and make a request. Our team of fact-checkers will verify the claim for you.
ABOUT US: We are News Detective, a community of civilian fact-checkers dedicated to making the truth transparent and accessible. You can join our community of fact-checkers, request factchecks and access fact-checked results on our website: https://www.newsdetective.org
Because they are awful at science.
It's almost like all their predictions don't come true 🤔😅🙄😒
Right, and it's.. warmer than they're saying it would be.
Oh no!!! Why wasn't it the coming ice age that they were predicting before that?
Nope! If you look at the scientific literature in the 1970s, there are 6x as many papers about warming as about cooling.
Of course, there was a scientist who talked to Time magazine who was worried about global cooling. But that's just like there are rare geoscientists today who think global warming isn't real.
If it kept warming, would you point to today's outliers and say that those rare oddballs were wrong? 'cause that's kinda what you're doing with the past scientists. And, in both cases, most of the scientific community had a really good and fair, well-informed perspective.
So they had papers for both to cover all bases, just like everything today. Cools down,climate change. Warms up,c climate change. Windy,climate change. Too dry,climate change. too wet,climate change. You wonder why people have their doubts? That's why!!!
so they had papers for both to cover all bases
Dude where are you even coming from? The scientific community is overwhelmingly expecting warming. The fact that there are a few people who disagree doesn't mean anything except that some people like being contrary and prefer to ignore the bulk of the evidence.
Some people just get attached to a certain perspective and then ignore the evidence that disagrees.
Looks a lot like what you're doing, too.
Nah I'm just sick of hearing about all this end of the world BS I've been listening to for the forty years I've been on this earth and not one of them has come true. Just drink the Kool aid already
I'm guessing you have trouble telling apart the scientific community vs the media. And when some lone scientist gets on the news, you think them being right or wrong disproves the entire scientific community's findings.
As a group, scientists didn't predict any kind of end of the world by now. They said we should avoid 1.5-2 C of warming, because that's when shit gets bad enough that we should avoid it.
But we're not there yet. We're at like +1.2C. So why would you have expected to see the "end of the world" by now?
I'm guessing you have trouble telling apart the scientific community vs the media. And when some lone scientist gets on the news, you think them being right or wrong disproves the entire scientific community's findings.
As a group, scientists didn't predict any kind of end of the world by now. They said we should avoid 1.5-2 C of warming, because that's when shit gets bad enough that we should avoid it.
But we're not there yet. We're at like +1.2C. So why would you have expected to see the "end of the world" by now? It's not what the scientific community was telling us, even 40 years ago.
And most of the stuff they did say would happen by now have been happening. It's warming at the predicted rate, the ice is melting in line with expectations, etc.
Because they don’t understand how the climate works. And the heat wave was from the volcano that blasted a massive amount of water vapor into the stratosphere. It will be gone in another couple years. Once again, proving that water vapor is the primary greenhouse, gas, and not CO2.
Nope. Nope. Nope. Eh, kinda? But also nope. You wanna try again or are you just trolling?
This is "I took like one week of climate science and couldnt be bothered to keep going to class after that" level of thinking
Wow water vapor is an important greenhouse gas?
Who told you that? It wasn't the scientists who spent a century sorting out the relative contributions of different GHGs, was it?
I’ve been following the climate research for 44 years. Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of the greenhouse effect. CO2 accounts for about 5% of the greenhouse effect.
You never noticed that clear nights it gets really cold, and when it is cloudy and overcast, it’s warmer at night ?
The Sahara desert can drop over 100° from the afternoon to the night time, often dropping below freezing. This is because the air is very dry. There is no water vapor to trap the heat. Perhaps you should read the research instead of blindly regurgitating what other people tell you
perhaps you should read the research instead of blindly regurgitating what other people tell you.
Dude.. come on. You are repeating what you" read, which itself doesn't agree with the scientific research. Your arguments were literally brought up and discussed and hashed out by scientists a *century ago. They talked out the effects of H2O vs CO2 in the early 1900s. Which, you'd already know if you yourself had "read the research".
I live in the desert, btw, and typical variations are about 30F. This is also true of the Sahara; swings of 70F are unusual. (Not completely unheard of, but yes unusual). Could you make your argument without exaggerating?
Likewise.. all of the stuff you are saying about H2O are either wrong or misleading. Water vapor condenses out when the air temperature drops, which means water vapor by itself can't maintain much of a greenhouse gas effect. It needs other greenhouse gases for it to get warm enough for it to even be in the air. So the level of water vapor acts as a feedback to other climate forcings - amplifying their cooling or warming effects. Without other GHG in the atmosphere, it would cool down, and water vapor would rain out, and then with less water water vapor it'd cool more, and then snow out, the water vapor greenhouse effect dropping the whole time. Eventually we'd just be left with a snowball.
Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing.
Seriously, can y'all skeptics please stop bringing up points that were hashed out a century ago? It just makes you look like you never bothered to learn the basics about this field.
You ever notice ... When it is cloudy and overcast, it's warmer at night?
Clouds aren't made of water vapor. They're made of water precipitated out to liquid or solid form; while water vapor is the gas form of water. What you're describing here is a cloud feedback effect, not a water vapor effect.
Wow, you are clueless. studies have shown that water vapor is responsible for a significant portion of the greenhouse effect, often estimated around 95%. This is because water vapor absorbs a wide range of infrared radiation and is more abundant in the atmosphere compared to other greenhouse gases. CO2 only traps a very narrow band of IR.
...dude, I just addressed that.
"But why male models"
You're stuck on like the first week of climate science stuff. Again: we got past "but water vapor is a major GHG" like a century ago.
Here, read what NASA says on this issue:
Or MIT'
Everyone addresses your points. We already know this stuff. Let's keep learning from there, not stop there.
Because climate scientists only see what pays their mortgage. They are about as legit as doctors.
When you get sick, you will go to a doctor.
No... I almost never get sick but when I do, I drink fruit smoothies with extra salt in them for the vitamin c and electrolytes. I'm good again within a couple of days.