• silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    You model them. A great example was the ice-albedo feedback, where you could measure the albedo of ice, and the albedo of open water and bare ground, and reach clear conclusions about how losing ice would create differential warming in the arctic.

    The modeling work won’t ever be perfect, but it’s good enough to have incredible predictive power.

    • Redacted@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      And yet still the ice is melting faster than expected and faster than that model predicted, because, as you explain, the models are inaccurate (overly conservative in nature as all scientific studies on complex systems tend to be).

      • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ice sheet dynamics have been an area where scientists haven’t converged on agreed-upon models. So yes, not everything gets there, but an awful lot does. As I said above, enough to be useful.

        • Redacted@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          You seem to keep supporting my point.

          The models are conservative, the peer review process is long and we’re rapidly running out of time.

          • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s more complicated than that. The temperature modeling is roughly right. Secondary effects aren’t as well modeled, and surprise is a lot more likely there.

            • Redacted@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes it’s obviously way more complex than that. For instance, there are a lot of additional warming factors that haven’t been included in current studies or “suprises” to use your euphimism.

              • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                The big ones we expect to play a role in the next few decades are in there though. That’s enough to be pretty useful.

                • Redacted@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Pretty useful, in that they predict warming but not necesarily accurate.

                  I disagree, we do not know how well feedbacks are modelled or even if the models include all significant feedbacks. Correct me if you’ve found anything that contadicts these:

                  • The albedo effect problem you mentioned is likely to happen faster than predicted as the latent heat of melting isn’t considered. The heat it requires to melt all that ice will instead heat the water around the remaining ice at a much higher rate.

                  • IPCC doesn’t account for the aerosol cooling effect. If we cut our emissions there would likely be a rapid warming of 0.5-1.0°C within a couple of years as particulates in the air are blocking less sunlight.

                  • The ice sheets don’t melt at a steady rate. Last time this much carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere they ended up retreating 600m per day which should affect predictions.

                  • Not strictly a feedback loop but worth mentioning… The earth contains less than 20% of the copper needed to produce the renewables required to replace fossil fuels over the next 20 years, about 20% of the required nickel and less than 2.5% of the required lithium.

                  • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    The albedo effect problem you mentioned is likely to happen faster than predicted as the latent heat of melting isn’t considered. The heat it requires to melt all that ice will instead heat the water around the remaining ice at a much higher rate.

                    Just no. Ice sheet response tends to be parameterized, where a computationally simple approximation is used, including this.

                    IPCC doesn’t account for the aerosol cooling effect. If we cut our emissions there would likely be a rapid warming of 0.5-1.0°C within a couple of years as particulates in the air are blocking less sunlight.

                    This is complete nonsense. They’ve been accounting for it for ages. That’s where figures like this come from.

                    The ice sheets don’t melt at a steady rate.

                    This is well known, and widely discussed.

                    Last time this much carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere they ended up retreating 600m per day which should affect predictions.

                    This appears to be from a single study of a particular set ice sheets off Norway which were grounded below sea level. Thwaites is like that, but much of the big ice sheets are not. Ice melt isn’t some simple thing which will happen at the same rate everywhere.

                    Not strictly a feedback loop but worth mentioning… The earth contains less than 20% of the copper needed to produce the renewables required to replace fossil fuels over the next 20 years, about 20% of the required nickel and less than 2.5% of the required lithium.

                    This is a serious misreading of what’s going on. There’s enough in the earth’s crust, but trying to depend only on existing mines would be a bottleneck. That’s why a ton of new mines are opening.