back
9 comments
I'd like to remind people reading this that are concerned about it that there is a LOT you can do to improve the world.

If many reduced their energy consumption and material waste there would be a measurable reduction in CO2. Buy things only when you need them, reuse or find a new home for things before discarding them. Keep you tires inflated, buy efficient vehicles. Improve home insulation, consider a heat pump heating and cooling system when the time comes, etc.

Don't let this be a problem because you can't get government to force your neighbors to do it, take the initiative to lead by example.

> I'd like to remind people reading this that are concerned about it that there is a LOT you can do to improve the world.

Yes, yesterday, 2 old ladies (1) knocked at my door, asking me if i want to come to a meeting to save the Earth. I politely declined.

(1) They looked like Jehowa Whitnesses.

Meanwhile we are still knocking off ghost stations for false reporting with subtle increases of warming trends.

USHCN Stations, like 342944 (Erick, OK), 80228 (Arcadia, FL(, and 235541 (Mexico, MO)

A full list is on:

https://x.com/search?q=%23NOAAghoststations&src=typed_query&...

But Trump says it's fake news!

Seriously, it's going to be a hard uphill battle to convince people this is real and they should vote for policies to fix these issues, rather than keep voting for billionaires.

How is it possible to build an accurate computer model to make this prediction?
first of all you have accept that its not binary. if you read the linked report, they spend some time talking about discrepancies between models and some of the problem areas where they don't agree.

in general predictive accuracy is the bread and butter of this kind of simulation work. since we aren't actually simulating the earth, everything in an approximation. you get work published by analyzing the failure modes of these approximations, investigating new simulation techniques, and examining the impact of integrating more and more effects (like chemical reactions, or air-water heat exchange, or more detailed salinity models, or ...). Each these papers does their own analysis, often times by 'replaying history', that is taking a time period with sampled data, evolving the state of the simulated system and comparing it to the measured evolution of the actual system.

so 'is it accurate' is not really a meaningful question, 'it is sufficiently predictive to be useful with an acceptable confidence' is maybe a better question to ask.

Useful for what?
Is it accurate? Is there an meta analysis somewhere of past models and their accuracy?
If only there was a link to the report on TFA, which then itself linked to multiple sources, configurations, and processes used.