The Atlantic is cooling at record speed and nobody knows why(scihb.com)
scihb.com
The Atlantic is cooling at record speed and nobody knows why
https://www.scihb.com/2024/08/the-atlantic-is-cooling-at-record-speed.html
44 comments
The AGW case should have been that it's easy to observe the earth is absorbing more energy than it's emitting, easy to demonstrate that this is due to greenhouse gasses, and it doesn't depend on complex modelling but rather basic physics.
Instead the atmospheric and oceanographic modellers managed to identify their extremely fallible models with climate change as a thesis, and now half the population trusts those models far too much, and the other half is far too skeptical of global warming generally.
Instead the atmospheric and oceanographic modellers managed to identify their extremely fallible models with climate change as a thesis, and now half the population trusts those models far too much, and the other half is far too skeptical of global warming generally.
The problem is how to model the humongous influence of water vapour, albedo and cloud cover. There are so many feedbacks and complex dynamics there, it's not as simple as if we simply had a "nitrogen, oxygen and CO2" atmosphere.
Ssshhhh - don't challenge dogma from the current pet religion with logic or reason!
A model that predicts what will happen in 500 years doesn't need to predict every minor deviation in ocean temperature for every quarter of every year.
I mentioned decades though, most environmental models target the 20-30 year range and I've never seen one that goes out to 500 years. You're changing my point so you can argue against something I never said.
I'd expect a model that is expected to be accurate over a handful of decades would in fact be predictive on the scale of a year or a few years.
I also specifically left open the avenue that a model didn't predict this as a likely outcome but did have smaller probability outcomes that would have predicted a temperature decrease.
Its reasonable enough that the model may have found this as unlikely, but unreasonable if the model was so wrong that it wasn't even aware of this as a possible outcome in the first few years of the model. The data simply can't be useful 30 years out when it has such blind spots only a year or a few years out.
For clarity, when I mention models here I mean all recent environmental models attempting to predict global climate or specifically ocean temperatures. If we have no idea why the temperature has dropped then every model failed to provide any scenarios where that would have happened.
I'd expect a model that is expected to be accurate over a handful of decades would in fact be predictive on the scale of a year or a few years.
I also specifically left open the avenue that a model didn't predict this as a likely outcome but did have smaller probability outcomes that would have predicted a temperature decrease.
Its reasonable enough that the model may have found this as unlikely, but unreasonable if the model was so wrong that it wasn't even aware of this as a possible outcome in the first few years of the model. The data simply can't be useful 30 years out when it has such blind spots only a year or a few years out.
For clarity, when I mention models here I mean all recent environmental models attempting to predict global climate or specifically ocean temperatures. If we have no idea why the temperature has dropped then every model failed to provide any scenarios where that would have happened.
They do actually. Climate models are iterative so error compounds.
If you dig into what those models do, well... cover your eyes. Some frequently run off the rails and predict a climate like Venus or Pluto. They're non-deterministic and don't always do this. Obviously that's due to bugs but the bugs don't get fixed. Instead they just do lots of runs and pick the ones that don't go crazy.
If you dig into what those models do, well... cover your eyes. Some frequently run off the rails and predict a climate like Venus or Pluto. They're non-deterministic and don't always do this. Obviously that's due to bugs but the bugs don't get fixed. Instead they just do lots of runs and pick the ones that don't go crazy.
This is a huge blind spot with regards to how climate models are actually reported. If you see the sheer number of models run and number of models reported on, you could easily think researchers are throwing darts and cherry picking results that match the narrative they wish to tell.
More importantly, because models are iterative the data becomes more and more useless as time goes on and predictions are missed. In this case, any model that expected the Atlantic to increase in temperature this year will likely be even less accurate for next year's prediction. Sure the models can be re-run with the latest climate data, but that just moves the goal posts and raises the question of when we realize the models aren't predictive.
More importantly, because models are iterative the data becomes more and more useless as time goes on and predictions are missed. In this case, any model that expected the Atlantic to increase in temperature this year will likely be even less accurate for next year's prediction. Sure the models can be re-run with the latest climate data, but that just moves the goal posts and raises the question of when we realize the models aren't predictive.
If you want metaphysical certitude, then some people seem to find that in religion, though I never was able to. Models are what we have, and yes, rather limited. To me, that's terrifying because it means that there could be truly world-ending, mass-extinction level consequences lurking in these systems. And we know that events like that have happened in the history of the Earth when the carbon cycle is thrown off balance. My biggest comfort in all this is that I don't have children who I will have to explain this to or who will live to see the consequences; frankly, I'm scared of the consequences I'll live to see.
> To me, that's terrifying because it means that there could be truly world-ending, mass-extinction level consequences lurking in these systems.
"Could be" is the real key there in my opinion. We simply don't know.
And I don't mean that in any kind of climate change denial sense, those arguments fall into the same trap as anyone arguing that we definitely know how and why climate will change and why it is changing.
We don't have the data for it, and a system on the scale of the entire planet is simply too complex to be able to predict.
My big worry when it comes to climate isn't what mass extinction events could be coming, its the fear that potential creates. Fear as scale always leads to bad outcomes. Fear gives us authoritarians, bigotry, wars, and on and on.
We need to recognize that society is almost certainly drastically outstripping planetary boundaries. Once we accept that we need to move towards simple changes we can make like reducing consumption, and we need to focus heavily on embracing the uncertainty of life rather than fearing it.
"Could be" is the real key there in my opinion. We simply don't know.
And I don't mean that in any kind of climate change denial sense, those arguments fall into the same trap as anyone arguing that we definitely know how and why climate will change and why it is changing.
We don't have the data for it, and a system on the scale of the entire planet is simply too complex to be able to predict.
My big worry when it comes to climate isn't what mass extinction events could be coming, its the fear that potential creates. Fear as scale always leads to bad outcomes. Fear gives us authoritarians, bigotry, wars, and on and on.
We need to recognize that society is almost certainly drastically outstripping planetary boundaries. Once we accept that we need to move towards simple changes we can make like reducing consumption, and we need to focus heavily on embracing the uncertainty of life rather than fearing it.
What does it mean to embrace the uncertainty of life? I live a very uncertain existence myself, and for me it has meant never putting down any kind of roots or committing to anything that I can't escape easily.
Sure, I'd expect it looks different for everyone. I would propose that a common thread should likely include a lack of, or at least control over, fear of the unknown.
Should one only fear the known? The known is far less scary as it can at least be anticipated and perhaps accommodated. Unknowns are the death of all my plans. It's like telling me not to worry about the things I can't control; why the hell would I worry about the things I can control?
I'd absolutely propose that people should only fear the known, and what they can control. Acknowledging what is unknown or out of your control is important, but fearing those is just paralyzing.
Fear can be an excellent motivator, but its only useful when you can actually do something about it.
Fear can be an excellent motivator, but its only useful when you can actually do something about it.
Wasn't there a movie about this? How the Atlantic rapidly cooled from glacier runoff, due to global climate change causing all the glaciers to melt?
While sick in bed, I recently rewatched that movie. It's completely ridiculous, but it was also the first thing that came to mind!
I saw an interesting review[0] from a climatologist talking about the biggest scientific inaccuracy isn't what you'd think. The mega hurricanes that freeze jet fuel in their eyes because they bring down super high elevation air? Apparently air, like most things, gains a huge amount of kinetic energy when it falls from great heights and would actually be incredibly hot[1], not freezing cold.
[0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlhj-0iAiMQ [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_temperature
[0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlhj-0iAiMQ [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_temperature
The other thread said something about a movie also, what is this mystical movie???
It was based on a book “The Coming Global Superstorm” by the late nightime AM radio host Art Bell… known for discussing entertaining but outlandish conspiracy theories and doomsday scenarios…. Not exactly for climatology expertise
The Day After Tomorrow
I'm not sure about the title "nobody knows why"
I recently watched a conference by Prof. Rahmstorf, it was eye opening, and a little bit grim:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHNNW8c_FaA
I recently watched a conference by Prof. Rahmstorf, it was eye opening, and a little bit grim:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHNNW8c_FaA
It's easy to imagine glacier runoff would contribute to colder oceans, but I thought that generally speaking, both ocean temperatures and sea level were on the rise. Can someone remedy my ignorance?
Generally speaking, they are.
As with most things, you'll find local fluctuations, like when Buffalo NY gets two meters of snow and Rochester NY gets none.
As with most things, you'll find local fluctuations, like when Buffalo NY gets two meters of snow and Rochester NY gets none.
This is indeed very welcome, even if we currently lack the understanding of all involved mechanisms.
The hot water in our oceans has caused a global coral bleaching event and the corals need time to recover.
The reefs are unfortunately still under a lot of stress from acidification, pollution and mass tourism.
The hot water in our oceans has caused a global coral bleaching event and the corals need time to recover.
The reefs are unfortunately still under a lot of stress from acidification, pollution and mass tourism.
Though not relevant to the Atlantic ocean, it is worth noting that the Australian coral reef has in fact recovered from the disastrous state it was after the bleaching and damage events in 2016/2017. Reef coverage is in fact at the highest levels ever recorded in some areas.
It does make one wonder why this more recent good news has not found the same level of exposure as when the situation was bleak back then. Perhaps good news just doesn't gather as many clicks.
It does make one wonder why this more recent good news has not found the same level of exposure as when the situation was bleak back then. Perhaps good news just doesn't gather as many clicks.
BBC reported this global bleaching event is also hitting the great barrier reef and things look bleak: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-68508423
The record cover was reported in 2022: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-62402891
But i agree that it got less publicity.
The record cover was reported in 2022: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-62402891
But i agree that it got less publicity.
Hold that thought. Climate and weather systems are rarely single input single output. And usually the secondary effects are not that everyone gets a free delicious ice cream sandwhich. Usually its more like a crucial ocean current is disrupted by the new temperature gradient and a common primary food source is eliminated or something like that.
[deleted]
Recent discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41297980
And it looks like this scihb.com post is a direct copy of that New Scientist story:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2444394-the-atlantic-is...
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2444394-the-atlantic-is...
Solar flares... will be an ice age after it cools down.
Scientists aren't idiots; they're well aware of the sun's regular cycling, and account for it.
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/impacts/space-weather-impacts-clim...
https://nso.edu/blog/scientists-develop-new-model-to-estimat...
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/impacts/space-weather-impacts-clim...
https://nso.edu/blog/scientists-develop-new-model-to-estimat...
Are they? Scientists are utilitarians. If they don't have a good answer for a problem they assume it's not a problem. (I get the argument that's made. If you waited for perfection you'd wait forever. But it's a fundamentally philosophical position. You should be allowed to disagree. For example, you could choose to wait for ever. Hell, you could choose to be wrong, and as philosophy goes, that's certainly a valid position. There's people arguing that an example of choosing to be wrong is morality, and it's a pretty good argument)
For example, what does every theoretical statistics textbook say about both kinds of out-of-distribution predictions? (statistics can only predict continuous functions in the ranges it has data about. And this is badly expressed. In reality there is a "minimum smoothness" the function must have if you want to be successful in predicting (ie. no spikes), and the smoothness requirement gets relaxed somewhat if you have more data, but not much, even with extreme amounts of data. Out of distribution predictions, of course, lead to disaster regardless of how much data you have, as the data is irrelevant).
I get it, "theoretical statistics" is a synonym for "nobody has ever read it, nor ever will", but it kind of is what the whole thing is based on nevertheless.
No worries, I'm sure machine learning will solve it all, of course.
Not that the IPCC report uses theoretical statistics. I would call what it uses "political" statistics. Not in the sense that they choose the outcome (perse), but in the sense that they use methods selected to maximize participation (e.g. giving absolute maximum credit). For example, how do you average 20 models, all based on different principles? When you don't know which is right? Well, it's easy, really. You take out 2-3 models you don't like (but still mention and credit them), then average the models' predictions. And that theoretical statisticians say "that's unfair! Here's a proof can get any prediction you want that way!" is met with "shut up" comments. Well, after checking if that proof wasn't wrong, of course. It wasn't.
For example, what does every theoretical statistics textbook say about both kinds of out-of-distribution predictions? (statistics can only predict continuous functions in the ranges it has data about. And this is badly expressed. In reality there is a "minimum smoothness" the function must have if you want to be successful in predicting (ie. no spikes), and the smoothness requirement gets relaxed somewhat if you have more data, but not much, even with extreme amounts of data. Out of distribution predictions, of course, lead to disaster regardless of how much data you have, as the data is irrelevant).
I get it, "theoretical statistics" is a synonym for "nobody has ever read it, nor ever will", but it kind of is what the whole thing is based on nevertheless.
No worries, I'm sure machine learning will solve it all, of course.
Not that the IPCC report uses theoretical statistics. I would call what it uses "political" statistics. Not in the sense that they choose the outcome (perse), but in the sense that they use methods selected to maximize participation (e.g. giving absolute maximum credit). For example, how do you average 20 models, all based on different principles? When you don't know which is right? Well, it's easy, really. You take out 2-3 models you don't like (but still mention and credit them), then average the models' predictions. And that theoretical statisticians say "that's unfair! Here's a proof can get any prediction you want that way!" is met with "shut up" comments. Well, after checking if that proof wasn't wrong, of course. It wasn't.
> Are they?
Yes, I linked to direct evidence it's being accounted for in models.
Yes, I linked to direct evidence it's being accounted for in models.
[dupe]
Some more discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41297980
Some more discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41297980
(deleted)
This is cooling in the equatorial Atlantic. Collapse of circulation doesn't answer the question at all, because circulation carries heat out of the equatorial region.
[deleted]
If our models were really accurate enough to be useful guides, should we have seen a change like this coming or at least be aware of what modelled as a less likely scenario that would lead to this outcome?