# When will Climate Change become dire? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 21, 2019, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-will-climate-change-become-dire/843739 "2019-11-21T00:10:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2019, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-will-climate-change-become-dire/843739/181 "2019-12-07T23:56:24Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > Try again, GIGObuster. I can give you cites if you want that present models predict a higher frequency of Cat 5 hurricanes. As a matter of fact, I did give you one. Full stop here, you are grossly ignoring that science is not just a single paper or study, there is a need for confirmations and many other studies, hence what science does there in the cite made, they are telling us that right now that example of yours is an ignorant point because other studies point in a different direction, hence the usual position that more research is needed to reach a conclusion that will be more supported. ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2019, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-will-climate-change-become-dire/843739/182 "2019-12-08T00:12:12Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Ah, I get it - you aren’t actually here to learn anything. You’re just an especially adroit JAQer. > Incorrect. > > At no point did I assert there would be a rise of 7 feet in sea level, nor even proposed a model that would predict that (Even though, as **GIGObuster** pointed out, such models do exist). I stated it purely as a hypothetical - IF this happened, THESE are consequences. You are attempting to twist my posts into something they are not for you to attack in a pre-planned manner. > > You purposely misconstrue analogies and hypotheticals as proposed facts when in fact they are nothing of the sort. > > You are a climate change denier in “educate me” clothing. > > I am no longer playing your game. First, 2 meters is not 7’. Second, putting the word “if” is automatically conjecture. Do you not understand that? I twisted nothing. I said exactly what you said. You conjecture that IF something happens, that isn’t projected to happen, then maybe, possibly, something else might need to happen. And with all that conjecture, you then want to claim climate change is dire. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2019, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-will-climate-change-become-dire/843739/183 "2019-12-08T00:17:08Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > First, 2 meters is not 7’. Ocean rise will not stop magically after 2100 ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2019, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-will-climate-change-become-dire/843739/184 "2019-12-08T00:40:44Z")
> [@BeepKillBeep](#): > > I’ve no problem answering questions. Again, I apologize for not answering much yesterday and today. As I mentioned I have a paper I’m trying to get out the door because there’s a conference deadline coming up (it’s a long story so I should stop now). > > I’ve noticed from looking back through the thread that you seem particularly interested in what’s happening now versus predictions. Overall, the worst of climate change has not happened yet. By the time we get there, that will be bad, so there may not be a lot of material to present. The most prominent effects at the moment are in temperature, which is an unmistakable warmer that the global temperature is rising. As with the rainfall in the Willamette Basin, many of the other effects of climate change a small, but significant variations from the norm so they can disappear into the noise of the real-world (i.e., error). > > So the natural question would be, I think, if the real-world effects so far are not too bad, why would I say that climate change is already dire (as I posted above)? > > 1 - There are many different models. Some models predict worse outcomes than others. In some sense, these can be taken as showing a range out of outcomes. The best case scenarios models are quite bad. > > 2 - Scientists **love** to disagree. Unless you’ve been around scientists this might seem odd, but it is very true. Everything I’ve ever presented has been questioned. Always. 100% of the time. Scientists especially **love** to prove another scientist incorrect (or incomplete). And that’s not a bad thing, that’s how good science gets done. So, to have so many scientists from diverse fields saying “climate change is real , human-engineered, and the outcome is super bad” is very telling. Now, of course, there is much disagreement within the scientific community. Scientists disagree about the which model is best, they disagree about how they’re analyzed, etc. However, there is one constant message coming out “climate change is real , human-engineered, and the outcome is super bad” over and over and over. I’m not a climatologist, I’m a computer scientist, but that message being repeated by so many scientists is a very compelling one especially when my (limited) review of the literature suggests they’re right. > > 3 - The window is closing. That’s what I mean when I say it is dire. If the outcomes are going to be as bad as the worst case estimates, then it is bad. The window to have 1.5C degree global temperature rise is gone for all practical purposes. The window for a 2C degree global temperature is rapidly closing. In my opinion, it is basically gone. There are simply too many people who will not accept taking action, largely for vested economic reasons. And I say vested because while fossil fuel industries would be hurt, much of the economic analysis suggests that addressing climate change would likely be a net economic gain. So, it is specific industries and their supporters keeping us from acting. Lately, the message has been we’re on track for a 3C degree global temperature increase. A 3C degree change is where some of the worst outcomes start to occur because we have to start looking at the effects of widescale permafrost thawing out, and releasing greenhouse gasses that will further increase the temperature. > > So hopefully that explains my point of view. Again, I will try to answer questions as best as I can, I’ve just been very busy the past couple of days. I’m a scientist (engineer) and I’m fully aware scientists disagree. It is a benefit to the system, not a bug. Take your time responding. Whatever information you can help me understand would be appreciated. First, I’ll say upfront again, I don’t doubt for a second temps are rising and will likely continue to rise. I’ve no doubt sea levels will rise as a result. I’m really not sure what constitutes a “denier”, but if it is about understanding those as facts, I’m not one of them. I also understand small changes now can me huge issues later. I certainly understand that the full effects of what we do now can have huge impacts later. I’m not so much interested in trying to understand why things aren’t bad now, I’m trying to understand the stance the models are as unmistakable as is being stated. As I said before, in order for a model to be believed, it must first predict outcomes that are verifiable. Newtonian physics is great when talking about things on a macro scale, but it breaks down on the subatomic or relativistic scale. It took a while, but Einstein’s equations were proved beyond a shadow of a doubt through rigor and testing. I’m wondering what tests can we point to in the models for climate change that can give similar credence to their veracity? What do the models predict that is measurable that we can look at and say, “yep, the models are right!” beyond just temps and sea level. If the models are just about temps and sea level, what studies are there to link those changes to major upheavals? ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2019, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-will-climate-change-become-dire/843739/185 "2019-12-08T01:55:36Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > If the models are just about temps and sea level, what studies are there to link those changes to major upheavals? You know there’s a whole internet out there with thousands of climate sites that can answer these questions faster than bothering a few people who are taking time out of their lives to try to help you, right? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2019, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-will-climate-change-become-dire/843739/186 "2019-12-08T04:04:45Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > I’m a scientist (engineer) and I’m fully aware scientists disagree. It is a benefit to the system, not a bug. Uh… [http://www.bu.edu/eng/about/dean-lutchen/engineering-is-not-science/](http://www.bu.edu/eng/about/dean-lutchen/engineering-is-not-science/) > [@](#): > > Engineering Is Not Science > > Engineers are not a sub-category of scientists. So often the two terms are used interchangeably, but they are separate, albeit related, disciplines. Scientists explore the natural world and show us how and why it is as it is. Discovery is the essence of science. Engineers innovate solutions to real-world challenges in society. [QUOTE] > [@cmosdes](#): > > As I said before, in order for a model to be believed, it must first predict outcomes that are verifiable. Newtonian physics is great when talking about things on a macro scale, but it breaks down on the subatomic or relativistic scale. It took a while, but Einstein’s equations were proved beyond a shadow of a doubt through rigor and testing. I’m wondering what tests can we point to in the models for climate change that can give similar credence to their veracity? You know there post #127 exists no? [https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=22010070&postcount=127](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=22010070&postcount=127) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2019, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-will-climate-change-become-dire/843739/187 "2019-12-08T04:23:56Z")
Correction to previous post: You **do know that post** #127 exists? The published paper looked at how models predicted the current warming, and what is more interesting is that how (in a different earlier study) they even pointed at an error about how some temperatures were reported erroneously in the past. > **[Hitting Pause: Researchers Debunk the Global Warming Hiatus - Cal Alumni...](https://alumni.berkeley.edu/california-magazine/spring-2017-virtue-and-vice/hitting-pause-researchers-debunk-global-warming)** > > A recent study by Berkeley researchers and the nonprofit Berkeley Earth has confirmed something most of us thought we already knew; namely, that the globe has been growing steadily warmer in recent decades. Published in Science Advances in January,... > [@](#): > > A recent study by Berkeley researchers and the nonprofit Berkeley Earth has confirmed something most of us thought we already knew; namely, that the globe has been growing steadily warmer in recent decades. > > Published in Science Advances in January, the study supported earlier findings by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) showing that there had been no global warming hiatus at the beginning of this century, as had been previously reported. > > … > > surface temperatures in the 15-year period from 1998 to 2012 increased at a rate that was, depending on the observational data set considered, only one-third to one-half the combined rate for the 60-year period from 1951 to 2012. > > Most climatologists found the trend paradoxical, since greenhouse gas concentrations continued to rise and the slowdown in temperature increase ran counter to the projections of most computer models. As climate change deniers seized on the data as evidence that alarm over global warming was overblown, scientists struggled to understand what was going on. Theories to account for the missing heat ranged from decreased solar activity and increased volcanic eruptions, to decadal ocean cycles. > > Then, in 2015, NOAA scientists found a simpler explanation. It turned out modern buoy-based marine measuring systems tend to report somewhat cooler temperatures than the ship-based temperature readings that were the norm decades ago. This made sense, since shipboard measurements were taken from ocean water piped through intake valves into hot engine rooms. > > When scientists adjusted for the “cold bias” of buoy-based systems, they found that average ocean temperatures had actually warmed 0.12 degrees Celsius per decade since 2000—almost twice as fast as the hiatus-supporting data indicated. Correct for the bias, in other words, and the hiatus disappeared. ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2019, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-will-climate-change-become-dire/843739/188 "2019-12-08T06:20:29Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > You know there’s a whole internet out there with thousands of climate sites that can answer these questions faster than bothering a few people who are taking time out of their lives to try to help you, right? I’ve tried to look for some sort of summary of the effects of global warming, what models predict, etc., but the IPCC papers are pretty hard to wade through because they tend to talk about much of it very guarded terms. Those are scientific papers which generally try to be conservative and it is difficult to get succinct answers. Yes, I’m aware such things exist. This looked like a unique opportunity to get specific questions answered in a direct way. If I’m bothering people I’m happy to go away. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2019, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-will-climate-change-become-dire/843739/189 "2019-12-08T07:29:38Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Uh… > > [http://www.bu.edu/eng/about/dean-lutchen/engineering-is-not-science/](http://www.bu.edu/eng/about/dean-lutchen/engineering-is-not-science/) I’ve been involved in engineering journals and conferences as author, reviewer, issue editor, editorial board member and program chair, and I can assure you that engineers argue just as much as scientists. There are plenty of proofs in engineering papers. Engineering journals do not only contain articles about how I built a new gizmo. However, engineers I know understand modeling better than **cmosdes** appears to. We may sometimes model using simulation, but we understand the benefits and weaknesses fairly well. I don’t recall seeing anyone saying that climate models are perfect. I’ve mostly seen that they have been too conservative. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2019, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-will-climate-change-become-dire/843739/190 "2019-12-08T08:05:21Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I’ve been involved in engineering journals and conferences as author, reviewer, issue editor, editorial board member and program chair, and I can assure you that engineers argue just as much as scientists. There are plenty of proofs in engineering papers. Engineering journals do not only contain articles about how I built a new gizmo. I know, the nit there was that, as Boston University College of Engineering points out, engineers are not scientists.[I’m just remembering all previous discussions when some past engineers have pontificated before about this issue.](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Engineers_and_woo)Engineers do have a different set of skills than scientists. And as Peter Hadfield has mentioned many times before, some humbleness needs to be taken into account when someone comes along that call himself a scientist when it is not really an expert on the subject, nor a scientist either. > [@Voyager](#): > > However, engineers I know understand modeling better than **cmosdes** appears to. We may sometimes model using simulation, but we understand the benefits and weaknesses fairly well. > > I don’t recall seeing anyone saying that climate models are perfect. I’ve mostly seen that they have been too conservative. As others say, the perfect is the enemy of the good, and I have to say that many who are not deniers have fallen for sources that seem to demand perfection but past experience shows that that demand by those sources is made precisely as a stalling tactic, so as to prevent any changes. > **[Climate Science Denial Explained: Tactics of Denial](https://skepticalscience.com/agw-denial-explained-2.html)** > > Continued from Part 1 > [@](#): > > Impossible expectations: demanding more precision and more perfect information than climate science can realistically deliver. For example, J.S. Sawyer estimated in 1972 that by the year 2000, atmospheric CO2 levels would rise about 25% compared to 1969 and that global temperatures would rise 0.6°C. Temperatures did in fact rise slightly more than 0.6°C by the time CO2 rose 25%, but it took until after 2010 for this to happen; I assume this is because early estimates of the rate at which carbon sinks (oceans and vegetation) absorb CO2 were too low. Most people would see this as a remarkably accurate prediction, especially since the temperature record in 1972 showed no hints that temperatures were about to rise. Pseudo-skeptics, however, seize upon the imperfection of the prediction as ‘another example’ of why we can’t trust climate science. Similarly, the 1995 IPCC projections (unlike the 1990 and 2000 ones) substantially underestimated the amount of warming that would occur by 2016. Upon learning this, a pseudo-skeptic I spoke with saw it as more evidence of bad science. (“so you’d disagree with anyone who calls the IPCC alarmist?” I asked. “Alarmists don’t underestimate.” He ignored the question.) ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2019, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-will-climate-change-become-dire/843739/191 "2019-12-08T08:55:54Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > First, 2 meters is not 7’. Here is another example of how you are twisting things. GIGObuster used the 2 meters measure, I never did. You are conflating what GIGObuster said with what I said and then attributing to me something I did not say. Again, I am no longer playing your game. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2019, 9:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-will-climate-change-become-dire/843739/192 "2019-12-08T09:02:12Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > I’ve tried to look for some sort of summary of the effects of global warming, what models predict, etc., but the IPCC papers are pretty hard to wade through because they tend to talk about much of it very guarded terms. Those are scientific papers which generally try to be conservative and it is difficult to get succinct answers. Yes, I’m aware such things exist. This looked like a unique opportunity to get specific questions answered in a direct way. You’re looking for a sound-bite answer to a subject that doesn’t have one. Sorry, you want your fact-based answers? You’ll have to wade through the “difficult” scientific papers. ---
**Author:** ![BeepKillBeep](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9e8a1a/32.png) [@BeepKillBeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeepKillBeep)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2019, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-will-climate-change-become-dire/843739/193 "2019-12-08T12:50:43Z")
For **cmodes** : Here is a very small sample of studies that have shown models producing accurate predictions to real-world events. I could easily post hundreds more, but A - I don’t have that kind of time and B - I do not want to overwhelm you. Overall, based on what you seem to be looking for I would consider reading Chapter 10 of the IPCC reports (again, not necessarily the whole thing but the summary, and whatever pieces are of interest to you). I did not cite any of the IPCC reports below preferring instead to look at individuals models and reports. > [@](#): > > The unique perturbed physics, boundary forcing, and initial condition ensemble approach used here allow us to confirm that historical SO2 emissions are likely to explain most of the 1940–80 rainfall changes and a significant proportion of the more pronounced 1950–80 drying. Ackerley, D., Booth, B. B., Knight, S. H., Highwood, E. J., Frame, D. J., Allen, M. R., & Rowell, D. P. (2011). Sensitivity of twentieth-century Sahel rainfall to sulfate aerosol and CO2 forcing. Journal of Climate, 24(19), 4999-5014. > [@](#): > > Focussing on the warm tail of the distributions, the return time of high rainfall events has been estimated with a generalized-Pareto distribution (Figure 6(d)) and again the model is found to agree well with the reanalysis. Although the length of the simulations does not allow extrapolations to rarer events, the above assessments provide some evidence that HadGEM3-A would be suitable for attribution studies of extreme rainfall events in the UK region. > [@](#): > > Having derived circulation-dependent temperature distributions one can calculate the probability of the event in question, as measured in this illustration by the frequency of days within the cold season for which the observed temperature is above all analogue temperatures. This statistic was a record in 2006–2007 (Figure 4). > The probability P0 of observing the record during the period 1900–1960 is estimated to be about 0.0007 compared to a probability P1 during the period 1970–2011 of about 0.03, which indicates a more than 40-fold increase in probability between the two periods, implying a FAR of about 0.97 (estimated to be between 0.87 and 0.98 with a bootstrap estimate of uncertainty). > [@](#): > > An application of such a fast-track attribution methodology enabled the Met Office to issue an attribution statement on the record temperatures seen in 2014 in the UK (back to 1910) and Central England (back to 1659). Precomputed estimates of the FAR measuring the human-induced change in the likelihood of getting annual-mean temperatures in the UK above certain thresholds from the climatological mean to five standard deviations above it are illustrated in Figure 2. It is estimated that human influence has increased the likelihood of record-breaking temperatures in the UK by a factor of about 10 (best estimate of the FAR ~0.9). In a complementary study, the chances of the smaller region of England experiencing a record-breaking warm year, as seen in 2014, were found to have been made more than 13 times more likely as a result of anthropogenic climate change. Stott, P. A., Christidis, N., Otto, F. E., Sun, Y., Vanderlinden, J. P., Van Oldenborgh, G. J., … & Zwiers, F. W. (2016). Attribution of extreme weather and climate‐related events. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 7(1), 23-41. See Figure 1 lines D and E. > [@](#): > > These satellite data (running since 1979) show that western Russia has seen a strong July warming of about 1.4 °C over this 30 y period (Fig. 5), suggesting that only about one third of the relevant Moscow warming is related to a local urban effect. The fact that observed warming in western Russia is over twice the global-mean warming is consistent with observations from other continental interior areas as well as with model predictions for western Russia under greenhouse gas scenarios (4). Hence, we conclude that the warming trend that has multiplied the likelihood of a new heat record in Moscow is probably largely anthropogenic: a smaller part due tothe Moscow urban heat island, a larger part due to greenhouse warming. Rahmstorf, S., & Coumou, D. (2011). Increase of extreme events in a warming world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(44), 17905-17909. > [@](#): > > Over the past 160 years, the simulated IPWP SSTs have also covaried strongly with the simulated global temperatures in the CMIP5 archive. While formal attribution studies have been made for the southern and northern Indian and Pacific Oceans (Barnett et al. 2005; Pierce et al. 2006), specific attribution of the IPWP has not been made. It is interesting, however, to note how closely the magnitude of warming in the 12-member CMIP5 ensemble matches the observations (Fig. 7). > [@](#): > > Comparisons between observations and 19 CMIP5 models reveal that the 2012 ASIE anomaly and the rapid decline of ASIE in the early 21st century are very rare occurrences in the context of these models and their responses to anthropogenic and natural forcing combined. The observed 2012 record low in ASIE is extremely unlikely to have occurred due to internal climate variability alone, according to the models, i.e., and has a much greater likelihood of occurrence in the “forced plus internal variability” scenario. > [@](#): > > The European summer of 2012 was marked by strongly contrasting rainfall anomalies, which led to flooding in northern Europe and droughts and wildfires in southern Europe. This season was not an isolated event, rather the latest in a string of summers characterized by a southward shifted Atlantic storm track as described by the negative phase of the SNAO. The degree of decadal variability in these features suggests a role for forcing from outside the dynamical atmosphere, and preliminary numerical experiments suggest that the global SST and low Arctic sea ice extent anomalies are likely to have played a role and that warm North Atlantic SSTs were a particular contributing factor. > [@](#): > > Although the summer UK rainfall in 2012 was unusually large, the model distributions studied suggest that any anthropogenic influence on these patterns was minimal. Note, that models also show when anthropogenic climate change is not a significant factor. Peterson, T. C., Stott, P. A., & Herring, S. (2012). Explaining extreme events of 2011 from a climate perspective. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 93(7), 1041-1067. Peterson, T. C., Hoerling, M. P., Stott, P. A., & Herring, S. C. (2013). Explaining extreme events of 2012 from a climate perspective. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 94(9), S1-S74.] ---
**Author:** ![BeepKillBeep](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9e8a1a/32.png) [@BeepKillBeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeepKillBeep)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2019, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-will-climate-change-become-dire/843739/194 "2019-12-08T12:55:00Z")
FYI. The searches I did in Google Scholar were: climate change model accuracy climate change attribution \<---- this wasn’t specific enough climate change attribution extreme weather I tried to focus on highly cited works; however, if you do these searches you will find hundreds and hundreds of papers on a wide variety of subjects. ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2019, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-will-climate-change-become-dire/843739/195 "2019-12-08T15:54:16Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Here is another example of how you are twisting things. GIGObuster used the 2 meters measure, I never did. You are conflating what GIGObuster said with what I said and then attributing to me something I did not say. > > Again, I am no longer playing your game. I didn’t conflate anything. You were talking about a hypothetical where if sea levels rise 7’, then Miami or NY might need to be abandoned. I said 7’ was a pretty wild speculation, and GIGObuster was trying to defend you by saying the models have 2 meters as a possibility by the end of the century. I was pointing out that 2 meters is not 7’, so his trying to defend your hypothetical was still off. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2019, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-will-climate-change-become-dire/843739/196 "2019-12-08T17:01:02Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > I didn’t conflate anything. You were talking about a hypothetical where if sea levels rise 7’, then Miami or NY might need to be abandoned. > > I said 7’ was a pretty wild speculation, and GIGObuster was trying to defend you by saying the models have 2 meters as a possibility by the end of the century. > > I was pointing out that 2 meters is not 7’, so his trying to defend your hypothetical was still off. 2 meters is 6.74 feet. As pointed before, close to 7, so not walk on the park for Floridians. And ocean rise will not stop magically after 2100. The point here is that once again gambling by expecting a better result when little is being done is reckless when one looks at what is plausible > **[2-metre sea level rise 'plausible' by 2100: study](https://phys.org/news/2019-05-metre-sea-plausible.html)** > > Global sea levels could rise by two metres (6.5 feet) and displace tens of millions of people by the end of the century, according to new projections that double the UN's benchmark estimates. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2019, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-will-climate-change-become-dire/843739/197 "2019-12-08T17:14:45Z")
IPCC: [Climate Models and Their Evaluation](https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter8-1.pdf) CSSR: [Climate Models, Scenarios, and Projections](https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/4/) CarbonBrief: [Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming?](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming) IPCC: [Summary for Policymakers Climate Change and Land](https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/08/4.-SPM_Approved_Microsite_FINAL.pdf) Good summaries of models and their predictive values. ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2019, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-will-climate-change-become-dire/843739/198 "2019-12-08T17:26:16Z")
> [@BeepKillBeep](#): > > For **cmodes** : > > Here is a very small sample of studies that have shown models producing accurate predictions to real-world events. I could easily post hundreds more, but A - I don’t have that kind of time and B - I do not want to overwhelm you. Overall, based on what you seem to be looking for I would consider reading Chapter 10 of the IPCC reports (again, not necessarily the whole thing but the summary, and whatever pieces are of interest to you). I did not cite any of the IPCC reports below preferring instead to look at individuals models and reports. > > Ackerley, D., Booth, B. B., Knight, S. H., Highwood, E. J., Frame, D. J., Allen, M. R., & Rowell, D. P. (2011). Sensitivity of twentieth-century Sahel rainfall to sulfate aerosol and CO2 forcing. Journal of Climate, 24(19), 4999-5014. They mention in the paper several times “forced response.” Is that a reference to anthropogenic contributions or is that referring to things like volcanoes and other large events? In the final paragraph, there is this: > [@](#): > > The unique perturbed physics, boundary forcing, and initial condition ensemble approach used here allow us to confirm that historical SO2 emissions are likely to explain most of the 1940–80 rainfall changes and a significant proportion of the more pronounced 1950–80 drying… If this structure correctly represents the relevant processes in the real world, it is very unlikely that the observed drought was entirely due to natural climate variability. This is clearly indicating most of the drought was through natural causes, but at least part of it was due to athropogenic causes. Obviously man made influences are having an effect on these weather patterns, as shown by this paper and the others you have linked to. I think what I’m taking from this is that using models scientists haven able to demonstrate with high confidence when climate change has been a significant contribution to weather pattern changes and when those changes have been more due to natural variation. In the first paper. there seems to be some room (as always, it is science) for the effects to have been due to natural variation, but the conclusion is overall it looks like it was due to anthropogenic causes. That would seem to answer the question of whether the models are tested and showing good alignment with observed recent weather events. So thanks for that. My next question is what general climate changes are being predicted in the next 10 to 15 years? GIGObuster has said the hurricane question is unsettled, so any change in that type of weather event will be uninformative until that science is settled. But what other weather patterns can we use as benchmarks in the next 10 years to gain further confidence that what is predicted in 50 years is less speculative? ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2019, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-will-climate-change-become-dire/843739/199 "2019-12-08T17:50:51Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I’ve been involved in engineering journals and conferences as author, reviewer, issue editor, editorial board member and program chair, and I can assure you that engineers argue just as much as scientists. There are plenty of proofs in engineering papers. Engineering journals do not only contain articles about how I built a new gizmo. > > However, engineers I know understand modeling better than **cmosdes** appears to. We may sometimes model using simulation, but we understand the benefits and weaknesses fairly well. > > I don’t recall seeing anyone saying that climate models are perfect. I’ve mostly seen that they have been too conservative. I never wanted to claim climate models need to be perfect. I’m actually trying to find out just how accurate they are. When I run modeling programs the first thing I do is compare them to known results. If they don’t come up with the same answer as the known results, either the inputs to the model are wrong or the model itself is wrong. If I was going to try to convince someone there is something really, really, horrifically bad going to happen in 50 years, I’d first want to demonstrate that whatever means I’m using to base that on have a high accuracy for things that are already known. That seems to have been demonstrated by the information BeepKillBeep is providing. Now I’d like to know what they predict in the near future, to once again measure their accuracy. Maybe that makes me a denier, I don’t know. ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2019, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-will-climate-change-become-dire/843739/200 "2019-12-08T17:52:23Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > IPCC: [Climate Models and Their Evaluation](https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter8-1.pdf) > > CSSR: [Climate Models, Scenarios, and Projections](https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/4/) > > CarbonBrief: [Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming?](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming) > > IPCC: [Summary for Policymakers Climate Change and Land](https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/08/4.-SPM_Approved_Microsite_FINAL.pdf) > > Good summaries of models and their predictive values. Thanks. I will go through these. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-will-climate-change-become-dire/843739.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-will-climate-change-become-dire/843739.md?page=11)