As long as they are not validated, climate models are certainly tools of scientific interest, but they cannot serve as a basis for climate policies. However, the worst possible scenario (worst case) They are simulated with current models and act as a scarecrow, as if the natural current to be expected (business as usual) And that would lead us to disaster.
But the good news is that some scientists, who are well-respected in the climate community, dare to question the quality and validity of the models that are then used to make alarming reports, predict excessive catastrophes and recommend massive measures.
“What is ideal for anxiety, however, should turn out to be bad advice.”
In a comment just published in “Nature”*, the problem of supermodels is “too hot” (hot models) finally. It is not incompetent deniers committing heresy, but openness that challenges science to improve.
A method modification is suggested. Depending on whether the frightening temperature increase is 1.5 or 2°C, the current concept is not to go over the carbon budget. This is a stroke of genius that makes it so easy to deliver remains to live with fossils, a carbon-neutral requirement that must be achieved as soon as possible, and only three years to work before it really is and surely too late. However, what is ideal for anxiety should be bad advice.
What are the living conditions
Instead, the authors suggest evaluating how the climate would develop if warming reached a certain level, for example 1.5, 2, 3 or 4 degrees Celsius. The result will not have the shape of the usual time-dependent curves, but will describe living conditions as they may arise. It is also recommended to adapt the models to regional conditions and check their compatibility in extreme situations. This may include the use of different metrics, for example the influence of factors, whether natural or not, other than only greenhouse gas emissions.
The proposed change in perspective could lead to profound changes in climate policy. Perhaps it will then be possible to overcome the net net carbon tyranny before 2050 and carefully consider measures more climate-adaptive than corrective. In either case, huge social and economic impacts are expected. Finally opening this debate is good news. We hope the authors will not suffer a torrent of protest that would put an end to their clarity.
Did you find an error?Please, let us know.
“Music guru. Incurable web practitioner. Thinker. Lifelong zombie junkie. Tv buff. Typical organizer. Evil beer scholar.”
– Climate science collapsed? glimpse of progress
Michel de Rougemont comments on an article in “Nature” that deals with “extremely hot” climate models.
OpinionMichel de Rougemont