Why were climate models so wrong about 2023? Neil deGrasse Tyson learns about why 2023 was hotter than we expected it to be and what effects need to be factored into future climate modeling with climatologist at NASA Goddard Institute, Gavin Schmidt.
The issue of aerosols blocking some solar radiation is known as global dimming. It is glaringly absent in most climate models despite being responsible for as much as 1.5 C of cooling effects.
Even the best climate models have many holes because we don’t understand all the processes that effect the climate, but it’s criminally negligent to not include processes we do understand in the calculus, especially processes that have such massive effects. Ignoring these influences has led to underestimating the speed of global average temperature rise.
4 Comments
newtboyIt’s probably even much worse.
bcglorfsays...Media(and even some of the vocal scientists trying to urge action) have been guilty of overstating confidence in climate modelling. Which is more or less what they are agreeing on in the video.
The IPCC summary of state of the art climate modelling, and virtually ALL published papers on various climate models agree that the unknown and poorly modelled aspects of our climate are larger than the known influence of CO2.
That is to say, the physical modelling largely operates on energy in and out from the Sun and then playing out how changes in that energy balance operate. The thing is, that energy budget is enormous, and the number of factors at play are even larger and dynamic to make it more fun. The influence of CO2 in the energy budget is one of the relatively straightforward elements, and so we've got a pretty good and confident assessment of how much it impacts energy balance. The problem with climate modelling, is that the CO2 impact is smaller than the errors and unknowns in many other factors in the model including clouds.
Which is all saying that our climate modelling is hard, and even though we know CO2 changes are pushing the energy balance up, our modelling of the energy balance is still not good enough to accurately predict energy balance changes. That means we've got a giant 'all other things being equal' qualifier on model projections because if cloud behaviour changes based on temperature, we KNOW that our errors there are larger than the influence of CO2.
Modellers have been trying to draw attention to this nuance, but it's been deemed inconvenient to persuading the public to act and thus ignored by many pushing for action. The almost inevitable side effect though is that over time the reality of the models inaccuracy will play out and the public is gonna be asking why 'science' was wrong.
siftbotMoving this video to newtboy's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.
newtboyMore explanation of why the proposed “solutions” are not really solutions or even feasible at all, they’re pernicious pablum.
Yes, it’s much worse than they’re telling you, well beyond the point of no return, and we aren’t even trying to be better yet.
Every study of actual data shows the climate is reacting faster than predicted to higher greenhouse gasses and feedback loops are in full effect in many areas of the planet, feedback loops not included in most climate models.
There is only one solution that works with all models…eliminate 95% of the human population. Since that’s a non starter, accept that civilization as we know it, and most animals are doomed. It’s the roaches’ time soon.
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.