If deniers are consistent about anything, it’s that climate models are useless. Except, of course, when they think they like what climate models say.
A study published on Wednesday in Nature tightens the IPCC’s range for Estimated Climate Sensitivity (ECS), the amount of warming to be expected from a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. The study puts its best guess at 2.8C, which is pretty squarely in the middle of what scientists have thought all along. It also affirms that the best-case scenario of little-to-no warming, which deniers point to as justification for inaction, is unlikely, as are the worst-case, “black swan” scenarios.
But because the AFP write-up was framed around the worst-case scenarios being “not credible,” deniers are celebrating the study as some sort of win. Despite the study’s confirmation of the consensus that carbon dioxide will have significant impacts on the planet, Climate Depot trumpeted the AFP piece as its headliner and Drudge put a link to it in its center column near the top. WUWT published the press release (though didn’t embrace the study), while GWPF tweeted a link to it, saying simply “told you so.” (In turn, we’d point out that GWPF have wrongly promoted the lower end ECS range this study finds improbable numerous times in the past.)
Now this study, and particularly AFP’s coverage, isn’t particularly helpful from either a scientific or a communications standpoint. For one thing, it’s based on recent short-term variation, not thousands of years of temperature data, like other paleo-climate based ECS studies. Plus, it uses a brand new modeling methodology--not exactly a tried-and-true approach.But apparently those who rail against climate models as hopelessly inaccurate will eagerly believe model outputs if they think it supports their denial.
Then there’s the whole “single-study-syndrome” issue, so we should take the findings with a grain of salt, especially given other recent studies putting ECS at the higher end of what’s likely. This new modeling exercise doesn’t take tipping points into account, meaning that--oops--those worst-case scenarios are still very much on the table if steady warming triggers rapid changes in glacier melt or ocean circulations or any other unexpected surprises.
We have known climate change would cause something around 3C of warming since at least the 1979 Charney report, and the exact amount is sort of irrelevant. We know it’s bad, no matter the debate over points of degrees. We’re already experiencing billions of dollars in additional damages with just the 1C of warming so far.
Doubling that will be expensive. Tripling it much more so. Trying to pinpoint exactly which year we’ll go from bad to terrible may be an academically interesting and valuable pursuit in terms of designing and planning for policy, but in terms of the public understanding the problem it’s pretty irrelevant.
Calling it fiddling while Rome burns is perhaps a little too mean-spirited. After all, it’s not scientists’ fault that media botched this story.
We’ll say instead that it’s more like using an abacus to try and figure out when the last building in Rome will burn down as the flames rage. Which would be good to know if you’re designing a detailed plan on how exactly how to fight the fire, but not exactly comforting for those already choking on the smoke.
Top Climate and Clean Energy Stories: