May 20, 2024 05:51 PM
https://iai.tv/articles/we-still-dont-un..._auid=2020
INTRO: 2023 was the hottest year ever. But we still don't understand the climate and our models don't predict it accurately, and they need to. With crisis around the corner, Tim Palmer argues that the only way we can mitigate let alone solve climate change is with a CERN for climate models. Otherwise we’ll be stuck in the 1970s in an ever more inhospitable world.
EXCERPTS: We are often told that there are many variables which make climate modelling more difficult. You have argued that we can understand chaos and just need to provide more time and resources to solve the problem. Are there not some intractable issues around the models we use to understand the climate?
I guess the honest answer is that we don’t know. But I take some encouragement from weather forecasting. If you go back to the 1970s weather forecast models were pretty rudimentary. I think you can compare climate models of today to simple weather models of the 70s. We could bring climate models to the levels of weather models today, if we pooled resources internationally. This being at the heart of my call for a CERN for climate change.
[...] A key question, which we won’t get an answer from the IPPC models, is whether its drought and flooding rather than these existential heatwaves which are going to be the greatest risk. It is a zero-order question, whether or not we should be adapting for flooding, heatwaves or drought. The models just can’t tell us that now.
We need to lead the way but we can’t just focus on the national. This is a problem for the globe and we need an organisation which brings in expertise from around the world.
So, what then is the role of the scientist is bringing this all about? There are huge political debates about how we implement all of this
I think we have got to be dispassionate about the strategy for NetZero if that’s what we are aiming for. How we get there is something we need to be more dispassionate about. Whilst there are manifest advantages to wind and solar, there are also downsides. The more we become reliant on renewables we need to plan for when demands exceed availability.
There are lots of attempts to do this but very little we can be certain will work. Take for instance a report from the Royal Society which suggested we could store hydrogen in salt caverns. There are a lot of engineering issues around these problems.
Personally, I think we need to embrace all possible solutions whether that be Nuclear or Carbon capture. I know people have reservations about both. But we need to seriously ask ourselves the question whether we can meet our energy needs with renewables alone... (MORE - missing details)
INTRO: 2023 was the hottest year ever. But we still don't understand the climate and our models don't predict it accurately, and they need to. With crisis around the corner, Tim Palmer argues that the only way we can mitigate let alone solve climate change is with a CERN for climate models. Otherwise we’ll be stuck in the 1970s in an ever more inhospitable world.
EXCERPTS: We are often told that there are many variables which make climate modelling more difficult. You have argued that we can understand chaos and just need to provide more time and resources to solve the problem. Are there not some intractable issues around the models we use to understand the climate?
I guess the honest answer is that we don’t know. But I take some encouragement from weather forecasting. If you go back to the 1970s weather forecast models were pretty rudimentary. I think you can compare climate models of today to simple weather models of the 70s. We could bring climate models to the levels of weather models today, if we pooled resources internationally. This being at the heart of my call for a CERN for climate change.
[...] A key question, which we won’t get an answer from the IPPC models, is whether its drought and flooding rather than these existential heatwaves which are going to be the greatest risk. It is a zero-order question, whether or not we should be adapting for flooding, heatwaves or drought. The models just can’t tell us that now.
We need to lead the way but we can’t just focus on the national. This is a problem for the globe and we need an organisation which brings in expertise from around the world.
So, what then is the role of the scientist is bringing this all about? There are huge political debates about how we implement all of this
I think we have got to be dispassionate about the strategy for NetZero if that’s what we are aiming for. How we get there is something we need to be more dispassionate about. Whilst there are manifest advantages to wind and solar, there are also downsides. The more we become reliant on renewables we need to plan for when demands exceed availability.
There are lots of attempts to do this but very little we can be certain will work. Take for instance a report from the Royal Society which suggested we could store hydrogen in salt caverns. There are a lot of engineering issues around these problems.
Personally, I think we need to embrace all possible solutions whether that be Nuclear or Carbon capture. I know people have reservations about both. But we need to seriously ask ourselves the question whether we can meet our energy needs with renewables alone... (MORE - missing details)