[chneu]

It's also worth noting that while this is uncertain, it's likely an undercount.

Our models are based on what we can measure. We're continually finding that we are under measuring.

Chances are that children born today will feel the effects of AMOC collapsing.

So this mentality of "omg they're over reacting, we have time" is really dumb.

It's very easy to nitpick and dismiss this kind of stuff instead of giving a shit because giving a shit means we have to accept we screwed up. Can we finally start giving a shit and be cautious?

[timr]

You’re putting words in my mouth. I believe that clearly stating the quality of the evidence is what distinguishes science from hysteria. We do no favors to the cause of science by exaggerating.

The contention that our models systematically underestimate reality is incorrect, and defies logic: if it were true that we were systematically failing in one direction, we’d make the models bias in the other direction.

[rcxdude]

>The contention that our models systematically underestimate reality is incorrect, and defies logic: if it were true that we were systematically failing in one direction, we’d make the models bias in the other direction.

It's possible for such biases to persist for a long time: In general, older climate models tended to overestimate the amount of CO2 that would be emitted but underestimate the effects it would have. The latter especially tends to persist because climate scientists are under a lot of pressure to not overstate their claims, given the very well-funded and active work to discredit claims about climate change (as well as a very human desire, given the lack of action, to be optimistic).

(You can also see a similar effect with the growth in adoption of solar power: even the most optimistic sources have and likely still continue to underestimate how much new solar will be installed in the next few years, because it's just growing so mind-bogglingly fast)

[timr]

> It's possible for such biases to persist for a long time: In general, older climate models tended to overestimate the amount of CO2 that would be emitted but underestimate the effects it would have.

I didn't want to get into this because it clouds the topic at hand and makes it sounds like I'm debating the quality of the models, but you're just objectively wrong -- it's well-known that some of the major climate models have "run hot":

https://www.science.org/content/article/use-too-hot-climate-...

In addition, every publication (including this one) that use modeling results show a wide dispersion around the mean.