Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

The_jackalope

(1,660 posts)
Thu Jun 20, 2019, 07:37 AM Jun 2019

Climate change: Why is it so often "sooner than predicted"?

Found some time in the future, engraved on a giant slab of rock (think Georgia Guidestones):

"To the Next Ones: Sorry we missed you. We had to depart sooner than expected.
H. sapiens"

Climate Change: Why is it so often “sooner than predicted”?

  • “As the Climate Council has reported, hot days have doubled in Australia over the past half-century. During the decade from 2000 to 2009, heatwaves reached levels not expected until the 2030s. The anticipated impacts from climate change are arriving more than two decades ahead of schedule.” [“‘It’s been hot before’: faulty logic skews the climate debate,” The Conversation, February 20, 2014]
  • “Climate change will reduce crop yields sooner than thought” (University of Leeds study) [Science Daily, March 16, 2014]
  • “New research shows climate change will reduce crop yields sooner than expected” (different study) [Arizona State University, March 25, 2014]
  • “Dangerous global warming will happen sooner than thought – study: Australian researchers say a global tracker monitoring energy use per person points to 2C warming by 2030? [The Guardian, 9 March 2016]
  • “Scientists Warn Drastic Climate Impacts Coming Much Sooner Than Expected: Former NASA scientist James Hansen argues the new study requires much faster action reducing greenhouse gases.” [Inside Climate News, Mar 22, 2016]
  • “Florida Reefs Are Dissolving Much Sooner Than Expected” [ClimateCentral, May 3, 2016]
  • “Scientists caught off-guard by record temperatures linked to climate change:” “We predicted moderate warmth for 2016, but nothing like the temperature rises we’ve seen” [Thomson Reuters Foundation, July 26, 2016]
  • “Ice-free Arctic may happen much sooner than predicted so far: study” [DownToEarth, 16 August 2018]
  • “Ground that is not freezing in the Arctic winter could be a sign the region is warming faster than believed” [“Scientists surprised to find some Arctic soil may not be freezing at all even in winter,” CNBC, Aug 22 2018]
  • “Paris global warming targets could be exceeded sooner than expected because of melting permafrost, study finds” [Independent, 17 September 2018]
  • “Climate change impacts worse than expected, global report warns” [National Geographic, October 7, 2018]
  • “Ocean Warming is Accelerating Faster Than Thought, New Research Finds” [NY Times, Jan 10th, 2019]
  • “Scientists warn climate change could reach a ‘tipping point’ sooner than predicted as global emissions outpace Earth’s ability to soak up carbon” [Daily Mail, 23 January 2019]
  • “Scientists who study the northern Bering Sea say they’re seeing changed ocean conditions that were projected by climate models – but not until 2050.” [“Bering Sea changes startle scientists, worry residents,” AP, Apr 13, 2019]
  • “New Climate Report Suggests NYC Could Be Under Water Sooner Than Predicted” [Gothamist, May 21, 2019]
  • “Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Melting Way Faster Than Expected, Scientists Warn” [Huffington Post, 06/14/2018]
    “Arctic Permafrost Melting 70 Years Sooner Than Expected, Study Finds” (The original source for the Independent article) [Weather.com, June 14th, 2019]
23 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Climate change: Why is it so often "sooner than predicted"? (Original Post) The_jackalope Jun 2019 OP
If it bleeds it leads... Loki Liesmith Jun 2019 #1
Or maybe the models are too conservative. The_jackalope Jun 2019 #2
Since most of the model effects Loki Liesmith Jun 2019 #8
No. It is not simple statistics. shanny Jun 2019 #3
Ditto. I was going to say the feedback mechanisms are killing us. Chemisse Jun 2019 #4
Having done climate modeling in my career Loki Liesmith Jun 2019 #7
And I think that the selection of stories represents the actual situation. The_jackalope Jun 2019 #14
the complexity of what makes up the climate and the difficulty in creating computer models beachbum bob Jun 2019 #5
Also, the climate response to rising temps appears to be strongly non-linear The_jackalope Jun 2019 #6
yep, having been aware of the climate situation going back to the early 1970's, I can tell you NO beachbum bob Jun 2019 #9
It's time to consider large scale geoengineering Loki Liesmith Jun 2019 #10
too many resource to undertake unfortuantely human nature prevents us from acting BEFORE beachbum bob Jun 2019 #11
We are a reactive species Loki Liesmith Jun 2019 #12
Hopefully we'll come out of this... nt The_jackalope Jun 2019 #13
Not seeing a lot of "smarter" out there lately .. . hatrack Jun 2019 #15
Huh. And here I thought it was just me. The_jackalope Jun 2019 #16
As I said long ago -- "faster than expected" is the new "no one could have predicted" eppur_se_muova Jun 2019 #17
World population 7.7 billion. CrispyQ Jun 2019 #18
I'm old enough customerserviceguy Jun 2019 #19
Many places on the planet *ARE* absolute hellholes, exactly as predicted. hunter Jun 2019 #21
The places you mention customerserviceguy Jun 2019 #22
Blaming China seems a popular thing to do... hunter Jun 2019 #23
Reality is hard pscot Jun 2019 #20

Loki Liesmith

(4,602 posts)
1. If it bleeds it leads...
Thu Jun 20, 2019, 07:41 AM
Jun 2019

News stories can only be written about things that have happened, not things that haven’t happened yet.

Some fraction of climate change related events is going to come in advance of predictions. It’s simple statistics.

The_jackalope

(1,660 posts)
2. Or maybe the models are too conservative.
Thu Jun 20, 2019, 07:55 AM
Jun 2019

Can you give a counter-example of a climate event that have arrived later than predicted? If what we're seeing here is just a statistical anomaly, there should be a few outliers on the other side as well.

Loki Liesmith

(4,602 posts)
8. Since most of the model effects
Thu Jun 20, 2019, 09:11 AM
Jun 2019

are predicted for tine epochs that haven’t occurred yet, it’s tougher to come by missed predictions. But give me few weeks to comb the literature and I’m certain I can find a few, sure. But please specify which model you want me to use. Tons of missed predictions from 1988 models, for example.

 

shanny

(6,709 posts)
3. No. It is not simple statistics.
Thu Jun 20, 2019, 08:03 AM
Jun 2019

It is a hugely complicated issue, with a myriad of feedback loops that keep out-distancing the climate models. The "worst-case" scenario is never "worst" enough.

So 15-20 years ago the prediction was for a 1-foot rise in sea level (iirc) by the end of this century, and now it could be societal collapse in 30 years.

Doesn't help of course that we have been accelerating our use of fossil fuels.

https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/12/new-global-co2-emissions-numbers-are-they-re-not-good

Incidentally a lot of the things being reported "haven't happened yet."

Chemisse

(30,793 posts)
4. Ditto. I was going to say the feedback mechanisms are killing us.
Thu Jun 20, 2019, 08:18 AM
Jun 2019

Just the simplest example is that ice reflects heat from the sun, whereas open ocean absorbs heat. When ice melts there is more open ocean so more absorption, warming the water and causing more ice to melt, and so on.

It's hard to calculate the effects in advance, and I expect some feedback loops that have become evident have taken scientists by surprise, as well as how much they accelerate the process.

Loki Liesmith

(4,602 posts)
7. Having done climate modeling in my career
Thu Jun 20, 2019, 09:05 AM
Jun 2019

I am quite aware of the feedback loops involved.

However I don’t have any reason to believe that the selection of stories about various effects coming early isn’t simply availability bias.

The_jackalope

(1,660 posts)
14. And I think that the selection of stories represents the actual situation.
Thu Jun 20, 2019, 09:35 AM
Jun 2019

I have thought that since the turn of the millennium.

The question now is becoming one of how much variation there is between the timelines of the models vs those of the real world.

Predictions from the 1980s were all over the map due to the the state of our understanding of climate physics at that time. The accuracy of the models is improving continuously, as is the coverage of the data sets.

 

beachbum bob

(10,437 posts)
5. the complexity of what makes up the climate and the difficulty in creating computer models
Thu Jun 20, 2019, 08:48 AM
Jun 2019

that brings in all the factors in a proper proportion.

The thing is, we are now past the point of no return and the climate change now will feed itself from here on. Its not what we can to do "stop" climate change that should be our focus. It better be how do we "survive" climate change as its is clearly that a great many of "us" will not.

The_jackalope

(1,660 posts)
6. Also, the climate response to rising temps appears to be strongly non-linear
Thu Jun 20, 2019, 09:05 AM
Jun 2019

If some aspect of the system changes dramatically past a particular temperature, unless we know exactly the behaviour, and the geographical distribution of contributing factors, it's impossible to predict the changes accurately. Land-based permafrost melting that releases carbon is a classic example.

For accurate predictions we need to know, inter alia, the distribution of permafrost in both area and depth; the temperature and humidity at each point in the model's grid; the rate at which heat penetrates the ground at each location; how quickly the released gasses reach the surface; the amount of carbon contained in the permafrost at each location; and how much of it will be released as CH4 vs CO2.

We also know that permafrost melting causes a positive feedback. However, I don't think we have a good handle on the feedback behaviour yet.

So there are problems with the models due to our understanding of the dynamics involved, as well as with the real-world data that is used to drive them, and also the assumptions that are used if real-world data is sparse. Due to the nature of science and scientists, the assumptions are far more likely to be conservative. This applies to every aspect of climate changes that are modeled into the future.

 

beachbum bob

(10,437 posts)
9. yep, having been aware of the climate situation going back to the early 1970's, I can tell you NO
Thu Jun 20, 2019, 09:11 AM
Jun 2019

discussions involved the release of methane gas from the permafrost areas, the super cold areas underwater...and the fact that these releases are so much worse and have a way more severe impact. Little or no mention of it in the early days which led to lots of underperforming weather and climate models. We will always be chasing that as new info, data and impacts are observed.

Why the focus must turn to surviving as it is all heading quickly to that point without able to prevent it and the outcome we have in store.

Loki Liesmith

(4,602 posts)
10. It's time to consider large scale geoengineering
Thu Jun 20, 2019, 09:15 AM
Jun 2019

Frankly it’s time to start experimenting with different approaches to moderating incoming solar flux.

 

beachbum bob

(10,437 posts)
11. too many resource to undertake unfortuantely human nature prevents us from acting BEFORE
Thu Jun 20, 2019, 09:16 AM
Jun 2019

disaster strikes

Loki Liesmith

(4,602 posts)
12. We are a reactive species
Thu Jun 20, 2019, 09:21 AM
Jun 2019

It served us well enough as hunter gatherers. We were not prepared to become gods.

Hopefully we come out of this smarter.

eppur_se_muova

(36,227 posts)
17. As I said long ago -- "faster than expected" is the new "no one could have predicted"
Thu Jun 20, 2019, 11:01 AM
Jun 2019

(both of which *should* be qualified by the phrase "unless we had really thought about it".)

CrispyQ

(36,224 posts)
18. World population 7.7 billion.
Thu Jun 20, 2019, 12:57 PM
Jun 2019

The rich think we will all die off & leave beautiful Earth just to them. They are in denial about how hot the planet already is, how much change is coming in the decades to come. It's looking grim for humanity.

customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)
19. I'm old enough
Thu Jun 20, 2019, 01:18 PM
Jun 2019

to remember all the hype surrounding the first Earth Day. I was a freshman in high school at the time, and there were all kinds of predictions back in 1970 that the planet would be an absolute hellhole by the year 2000.

I particularly remember a fairly wide poster, when you looked at it out of the corner of your eye from across the room, it looked like a sort of abstract landscape, but as you got closer and looked closer, you could see that it was a teeming mass of humanity, crowded standing-room only from mountain peaks to seashore.

When we sound like Chicken Little, we don't get taken seriously after awhile. It is no surprise to me that there are so very many climate change deniers.

hunter

(38,264 posts)
21. Many places on the planet *ARE* absolute hellholes, exactly as predicted.
Thu Jun 20, 2019, 06:52 PM
Jun 2019

Nations like the U.S.A. simply exported much of the predicted problem.

In China they burn coal and use very toxic metal mining and refining processes to make many of the consumer goods sold in nations with stronger environmental laws.

And without doubt, there are already places on earth that have been turned into hellholes by climate change, climate change that was not caused by the people who suffer in these hells or try to flee them.

customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)
22. The places you mention
Thu Jun 20, 2019, 10:10 PM
Jun 2019

were they hellholes back in 1970, also?

I do agree that the Chinese are much more part of the problem than of the solution.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Climate change: Why is it...