Economists are rarely humorous but a dead clock is right twice a day, that is if you're old enough to know what an analog clock is. Economists say predictions are difficult, especially about the future. There is an overabundance of evidence that we have had a considerable over-reliance on modeling. And when combined with the maximal conservatism of scientific paper publishing language, vs using actuarial principles to convey risk analysis to the public and policy makers, the result is we are heading into rougher waters faster than we are prepared for. While I appreciate the complicated nature of this topic (modeling) I must admit that I find any discussion of whatever the F the IPCC does, says, averages, models or fingers to be a complete violation of rational analysis, given that the IPCC is a politically driven vehicle, not a science based arbiter of truth. And my sincere apologies for using the word truth in this (or any) context but I didn't want to spend too much time overthinking this absolutely inconsequential and utterly irrelevant reply. I used to think that our societies will collapse, if by climate change, due to solving it was not economically profitable enough. Then I started thinking that we will more likely succumb to the inevitable regulatory blockades without enough time to unravel the contradictions in our man made paradigm. Lately I've been thinking that it may be we've spent too much time averaging the model results in an effort to comfort ourselves. I'm voting for Massive Asteroid 2024 for President, campaign slogan: Not Soon Enough. Sorry. Sh*t got dark all a sudden. :/
I couldn't agree more. If there is value I think it will be in terms of improved models and helping to quantify the challenges that we will face in terms extreme weather, ice sheet melt, and sea level rise. Even then it doesn't change the urgency of decarbonization. I'm afraid the people that already care are doing what they can and one more alarm bell won't get the attention of people that don't believe that it is serious.
As an economist, I totally agree with your comment on economists. The profession can’t predict a great recession (2008) or a robust recovery (this past year) and has largely failed to incorporate nature into its theory or models. Of course there are a few wonderful exceptions, but for the most part…
When humans were hunter-gatherers we would have likely survived the present warming. But now most live in a very fragile society - I could barely feed myself for a week if the shops closed and the power to the freezer went off.
For us now the uncertainty merely affects the time we have to reduce emissions to net zero, not whether or not we must. And we are already behind schedule based on what we see already.
In my inexpert opinion civilisation as we know it will not survive 3K mean global surface temperature increase, considering 90% heat is going into the oceans.
I find the whole idea of averaging models quite strange. Surely the models should be weighted by historical accuracy: models that fail to reproduce historical behaviour should be weighted very low.
I'm wondering how you gathered the data for the CarbonBrief plot "Timeline of published equilibrium climate sensitivity studies" and if you have any advice for me if I wanted to gather that same data, and combine it with ECS estimates since the article was published in 2018. Are ECS estimates stored somewhere centrally, or, as it sounds like Prof Reto Knutti did in the paper referenced, does this require going pdf by pdf through all recent ECS studies? If so, is there a good way of at least zoning in on the relevant papers?
I think this is probably a question for Zeke and I also tried to message him directly. I'm not commenting to pester lol just in case he doesn't check his substack DMs as I know I don't.
I appreciated the discussion about models and their strengths and weaknesses. Question: it’s my impression (and I believe the latest IPCC report said as much) is that for the most part, the incredible climate research and modeling being done is somewhat siloed at this point (not a criticism!) and that climate scientists are just beginning to model synergies between, say, something atmospheric and something to do with glaciers. There’s also the challenge of modeling threshold effects/tipping points. Are my impressions correct? If so, would that indicate that the models are somewhat conservative, and that climate impacts may come sooner and be larger than current models predict? Thanks for any light you can shed.
Very much appreciate the excellent and even-handed analysis, thank you.
But still, I'm worried that all these models -- which are basically roadmaps of the end of the world (with side commentary by the authors noting various off-ramps) -- are simply wrong. What if scientific modeling about such a wicked problem is similar to the dismal and wicked science of economic modeling? If so, we should all remember that the world's top economists were predicting smooth economic sailing as late as November, 2007, right before the Great Financial Crisis -- a terrible catastrophe that could easily have returned us to the tragedy of The Great Depression.
For example, what factors have been neglected or underestimated that could quickly accelerate warming (air and oceans) much faster than anyone, or any model, anticipated? What about ocean temperatures climbing much more rapidly in the past year than any model anticipated? Is that anomaly consistent with modeling projections? Are there others, such as methyl hydrates? We were all surprised by shipping aerosols last year (something I worked on 20 years ago), so what other surprises lay in store?
It would be great to have a model to incorporate the historical climate surprises that have already happened, to project out other future surprises that will undoubtedly come. Hopefully, they are now all accounted for :) But unlikely.
Always appreciate your articles. Thanks for writing them.
I get that all the things she mentioned are going to happen to one degree or another, however she mentioned a few billion people dying and society essentially ceasing to function. I know things are going to be immensely challenging, but that just seems overblown for attention and views.
I read articles telling the public your kids aren't going to die from climate change, and then Sabine summarizes rcp8.5 on steroids and it gets shared everywhere on social media.
Economists are rarely humorous but a dead clock is right twice a day, that is if you're old enough to know what an analog clock is. Economists say predictions are difficult, especially about the future. There is an overabundance of evidence that we have had a considerable over-reliance on modeling. And when combined with the maximal conservatism of scientific paper publishing language, vs using actuarial principles to convey risk analysis to the public and policy makers, the result is we are heading into rougher waters faster than we are prepared for. While I appreciate the complicated nature of this topic (modeling) I must admit that I find any discussion of whatever the F the IPCC does, says, averages, models or fingers to be a complete violation of rational analysis, given that the IPCC is a politically driven vehicle, not a science based arbiter of truth. And my sincere apologies for using the word truth in this (or any) context but I didn't want to spend too much time overthinking this absolutely inconsequential and utterly irrelevant reply. I used to think that our societies will collapse, if by climate change, due to solving it was not economically profitable enough. Then I started thinking that we will more likely succumb to the inevitable regulatory blockades without enough time to unravel the contradictions in our man made paradigm. Lately I've been thinking that it may be we've spent too much time averaging the model results in an effort to comfort ourselves. I'm voting for Massive Asteroid 2024 for President, campaign slogan: Not Soon Enough. Sorry. Sh*t got dark all a sudden. :/
Even a one rifleman firing squad is pretty bad when you think about it.
And thinking about it that way would have been a good idea back in the 1990s. Sigh.
"Arguments over ECS are distractions."
I couldn't agree more. If there is value I think it will be in terms of improved models and helping to quantify the challenges that we will face in terms extreme weather, ice sheet melt, and sea level rise. Even then it doesn't change the urgency of decarbonization. I'm afraid the people that already care are doing what they can and one more alarm bell won't get the attention of people that don't believe that it is serious.
As an economist, I totally agree with your comment on economists. The profession can’t predict a great recession (2008) or a robust recovery (this past year) and has largely failed to incorporate nature into its theory or models. Of course there are a few wonderful exceptions, but for the most part…
When humans were hunter-gatherers we would have likely survived the present warming. But now most live in a very fragile society - I could barely feed myself for a week if the shops closed and the power to the freezer went off.
For us now the uncertainty merely affects the time we have to reduce emissions to net zero, not whether or not we must. And we are already behind schedule based on what we see already.
In my inexpert opinion civilisation as we know it will not survive 3K mean global surface temperature increase, considering 90% heat is going into the oceans.
I find the whole idea of averaging models quite strange. Surely the models should be weighted by historical accuracy: models that fail to reproduce historical behaviour should be weighted very low.
I'm wondering how you gathered the data for the CarbonBrief plot "Timeline of published equilibrium climate sensitivity studies" and if you have any advice for me if I wanted to gather that same data, and combine it with ECS estimates since the article was published in 2018. Are ECS estimates stored somewhere centrally, or, as it sounds like Prof Reto Knutti did in the paper referenced, does this require going pdf by pdf through all recent ECS studies? If so, is there a good way of at least zoning in on the relevant papers?
I think this is probably a question for Zeke and I also tried to message him directly. I'm not commenting to pester lol just in case he doesn't check his substack DMs as I know I don't.
Thanks for such helpful analysis!
so what do you guys think of this morning's news that suggest we blew past 1.5 10 years ago?
I appreciated the discussion about models and their strengths and weaknesses. Question: it’s my impression (and I believe the latest IPCC report said as much) is that for the most part, the incredible climate research and modeling being done is somewhat siloed at this point (not a criticism!) and that climate scientists are just beginning to model synergies between, say, something atmospheric and something to do with glaciers. There’s also the challenge of modeling threshold effects/tipping points. Are my impressions correct? If so, would that indicate that the models are somewhat conservative, and that climate impacts may come sooner and be larger than current models predict? Thanks for any light you can shed.
Very much appreciate the excellent and even-handed analysis, thank you.
But still, I'm worried that all these models -- which are basically roadmaps of the end of the world (with side commentary by the authors noting various off-ramps) -- are simply wrong. What if scientific modeling about such a wicked problem is similar to the dismal and wicked science of economic modeling? If so, we should all remember that the world's top economists were predicting smooth economic sailing as late as November, 2007, right before the Great Financial Crisis -- a terrible catastrophe that could easily have returned us to the tragedy of The Great Depression.
For example, what factors have been neglected or underestimated that could quickly accelerate warming (air and oceans) much faster than anyone, or any model, anticipated? What about ocean temperatures climbing much more rapidly in the past year than any model anticipated? Is that anomaly consistent with modeling projections? Are there others, such as methyl hydrates? We were all surprised by shipping aerosols last year (something I worked on 20 years ago), so what other surprises lay in store?
It would be great to have a model to incorporate the historical climate surprises that have already happened, to project out other future surprises that will undoubtedly come. Hopefully, they are now all accounted for :) But unlikely.
There are the things that keep me awake at night!
Always appreciate your articles. Thanks for writing them.
I get that all the things she mentioned are going to happen to one degree or another, however she mentioned a few billion people dying and society essentially ceasing to function. I know things are going to be immensely challenging, but that just seems overblown for attention and views.
I read articles telling the public your kids aren't going to die from climate change, and then Sabine summarizes rcp8.5 on steroids and it gets shared everywhere on social media.
Both can't be right.
Just wondering: is there a word missing between "very" and "climate" in the lede of your article?
"Despite a hot 2023 and the recent Hansen et al paper, there is still reason to doubt very climate sensitivity models"
(Please feel free to delete my comment once you noticed it.)