EPFL scientists developed a tool to evaluate climate models, revealing that some predict a much hotter future due to high carbon sensitivity, suggesting current emission reduction efforts may be inadequate.
What will the future climate look like? Scientists worldwide are researching climate change, developing models of Earth’s systems and analyzing vast observational datasets. Their goal is to understand and predict the planet’s climate over the next century. But which of these models are the most accurate and offer the best glimpse into the future climate of our planet?
In an attempt to answer that question and evaluate the plausibility of a given model, EPFL scientists have developed a rating system and classified climate model outputs generated by the global climate community and included in the recent IPCC report.
The EPFL climate scientists find that roughly a third of the models are not doing a good job at reproducing existing sea surface temperature data, a third of them are robust and are not particularly sensitive to carbon emissions, and the other third are also robust but predict a particularly hot future for the planet due to high sensitivity to carbon emissions. The results are published in Nature Communications.
“We show that the carbon sensitive models, the ones that predict much stronger heating than the most probable IPCC estimate, are plausible and should be taken seriously,” says Athanasios (Thanos) Nenes, EPFL professor of the Laboratory of Atmospheric Processes and their Impacts, affiliate researcher at the Foundation for Research and Technology Hellas, and author of the study together with graduate student Lucile Ricard.
“In other words, the current measures to reduce carbon emissions, which are based on lower carbon sensitivity estimates, may not be enough to curb a catastrophically hot future,” says Ricard.
Evaluating the plausibility of a climate model: big data analysis
Since the mid 1800s, the scientific community has been systematically observing the planet, measuring meteorological variables such as temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, ocean, and ice status on Earth. Especially over the last few decades, with observational networks and the deployment of satellites, the amount of observational data is vast, and using this information to predict every aspect of the climate’s future is a daunting task.
To evaluate a given climate model, the EPFL researchers developed a tool called “netCS” to cluster climate model outputs using machine learning, synthesizing their behavior by region and comparing the outcome with existing data. With the help of netCS, scientists can determine which climate simulations best reproduce observations in the most meaningful way – and rank them accordingly.
“Our approach is an effective way to quickly evaluate a given climate model thanks to netCS’s ability to sift through terabytes of data in one afternoon,” notes Ricard. “Our model rating is a novel type of model evaluation, and highly complements those obtained from historical records, paleoclimate records, and process understanding outlined in the 2021 IPCC AR6 assessment report.”
Nenes, who is invited to participate in the IPCC AR7 scoping meeting to be held in Malaysia, is of Greek origin. He recalls giving a piano concert in Athens in the middle of the summer almost thirty years ago: “The temperatures back then peaked between 33 and 36 degrees Celsius and were considered to be amongst the highest temperatures of the year. I’ll never forget how difficult it was to play the piano in that heat. Greece is now often plagued with summer temperatures above 40 degrees. Forest fires are commonplace, even invading cities, recently burning neighborhoods that I used to live in. And it will only get worse. The planet is literally burning. Temperatures worldwide are consecutively, year after year, breaking records with all of its consequences.”
“Sometimes I feel that climate scientists are a bit like Cassandra of Greek mythology,” concludes Nenes. “She was granted the power of prophecy, but was cursed so that no one would listen to her. But this inertia or lack of action should motivate not discourage us. We have to collectively wake up and really address climate change, because it may be accelerating much more than what we thought”.
Reference: “network-based constraint to evaluate climate sensitivity” by Lucile Ricard, Fabrizio Falasca, Jakob Runge and Athanasios Nenes, 13 August 2024, Nature Communications.
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-50813-z
Other authors included in the study are Fabrizio Falasca from the Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences at New York University, and Jacob Runge from the Technical University of Berlin. This research was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 860100 (iMIRACLI), by the FORCeS project under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research program with grant agreement No. 821205, and by the CleanCloud project under the Horizon Europe research program with grant agreement No. 101137639.
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
Follow us on Google and Google News.
11 Comments
Scientism : the lazy way to be a “scientist.” Totally biased articles on this website for the most part .
As a now eighty year old lay resident of planet earth it appears to me that climate change is real, with that being resultant of human overpopulation due primarily to organized religion growing the ‘Church’ and the rich who never pay their fair share of taxes growing their populations of slave workers. And, it just occurred to me that it might be a better interim fix to deploy enormous high altitude solar reflective balloons, which could be brought down later (as opposed to sprayed lower altitude toxic chemical reflectors) if it starts getting too cold. Also, am I alone in wondering just how much huge wind turbines are contributing to climate change by disrupting natural wind currents?
Climate change is real (according to models). New York city has been under 5 feet of water for the last 5 years (according to models). Famine and starvation have ravaged the earth (according to models). Fresh, drinkable water is almost nonexistent (according to models). Hurricanes and typhoons driven by climate change have killed millions (according to models). Climate fear should make certain entities billions of dollars (according to models).
I’m no climatologist and didn’t create any of those ‘models’ but I do know this is an action-reaction, cause and effect, stimulus-response universe we inhabit. And, this is a finite planet with mostly finite resources we populate, with only pseudo-renewables coming from outer space (e.g., sunlight, meteorites, etc.). With the global population nearly doubling since 1980, humanity failing to evolve above and beyond waste and war and there being a lot of variables involved in forecasting weather and climate, my eighty years of experience with all kinds of weather suggest to me it would be wise to err on the side of caution, if to err at all, especially if there’s the potential to reach an irreversible tipping-point.
Can the doom-mongering get worse? The new models say “yes”.
Twenty years ago, the scientists of the day were predicting the extent of glacial ice melt we are seeing today would take from 300 to 1,000 years to happen. But I thought they were probably wrong, and I predicted it would only take about 25 years; and here we are 20 years later and my prediction is proven correct. Nobody really talks much about those old, highly inaccurate predictions for some reason.
I’m not a scientist, but my prediction back then was based on the simple observation of how the old refrigerator-freezer units would thaw, which was long before they developed self-defrosting freezers. I’m that old.
But for those who don’t remember, the old freezers would start thawing very slowly at first, typically taking 2 or 3 hours before any real ice melt was even noticeable. Then the next thing you knew the ice melt picked up an exponential pace until all of sudden huge chunks of ice would come crashing down off the freezer walls. It was always a huge mess and you couldn’t prevent ending up with a minor flood on the kitchen floor.
Anyway, that was the sole basis of my theory for glacial ice melt 20 years ago: I assumed that the Earth is fundamentally no different than an old freezer and that once unchecked glacial melting started it was only going to be a matter of not very much time before huge chunks of glaciers would start falling away into the sea. And that’s what is happening.
So now for my next prediction: I’m predicting that by 2030, or within six years, global heatwaves will reach a minimum 150° Fahrenheit. In other words, we will be seeing areas like Arizona, Texas, California, areas in China, the Middle East and elsewhere hitting 150° Fahrenheit relatively very soon.
I’m not suggesting the whole planet will hit 150° and only that many places will, based on my prediction. These will also be “heatwaves” and not constant highs. They will just be “summertime highs” so to speak. But at 150° it will still be enough to kill off hundreds of millions or billions of people very quickly, like within a couple of hours, including to kill off most other life forms. So it could result in human extinction.
Now, I have told quite a few people my theory and most have called me crazy. But in reality, it’s only about 20° to 25° higher than the highest temperatures we are already seeing in hundreds of regions around the world. So it’s really not very much higher in that context.
That’s fine. I hope I’m crazy. But I just know that going up another 25° from here in the next few years is not impossible and nobody can prove it’s impossible.
Anyway, my prediction here is actually a bit more complicated than my “old freezer theory” was from 20 years ago. But it’s not a lot more complicated. And I won’t bother explaining all that to you here, but let’s just say it mostly still amounts to a little common sense, similar to the old freezer theory.
And the details of my theory don’t really matter anyway, since if I’m correct the we are all as good as dead. So we’ll see…🧐
“…, the old freezers would start thawing very slowly at first, typically taking 2 or 3 hours before any real ice melt was even noticeable.”
That was because the ice doesn’t melt until it gets to 0 deg C. The rate of melting depends on how well the heat is distributed through the ice. “Exponential” has a specific meaning, which because you say you are not a scientist, you probably don’t understand. It is possible that there will be negligible melting for a long time, and then suddenly the whole mass will melt. That is what you were observing when you commented about “until all of sudden huge chunks of ice would come crashing down off the freezer walls.” If a hypothesis is based on an incorrect understanding, you shouldn’t expect predictions to be useful.
I don’t know where are you quoting from, but twenty years ago scientists said Manhattan would be under water by now. Not 300 to 1000 years in the future, but now.
And it’s not.
Other than that, kudos to you and your prediction, I guess. Even with faulty presumptions you were able to reach the correct conclusion. That’s a talent.
Do you extend your abilities to football scores? Asking for a friend.
Being right, for the wrong reason(s), is a great ‘sin’ in science. One can only attribute being right to sheer luck.
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” ― Richard P. Feynman
The most important concept in all of climate science is described in the three crucial words left out of every declared climate disaster: “According to models.” That’s why 98% of all predictions relating to climate have not come to pass, which should be a great embarrassment to the globalists promoting the scheme and suppressing any opposing observations. They are not embarrassed because they mostly control the media and the science establishment. Only certain pesky internet outlets allow any dissenting voices to be heard and steps are being taken to put a stop to that.
Did you hear the latest? We are all doomed unless someone at the UN steals the sovereignty and wealth of rich and powerful nations (according to models). We only have a short time until it’s irreversible (according to models). Life as we know it will be changed forever (according to models). Nations will invest billions in the climate model making institutions (according to models). Global taxation by the UN is only a few years away (according to models).