Estimates of climate-change impacts will get less, rather than more, certain. But this should not excuse inaction, say Mark Maslin and Patrick Austin.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Relevant articles
Open Access articles citing this article.
-
Resilience of the Eastern African electricity sector to climate driven changes in hydropower generation
Nature Communications Open Access 17 January 2019
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Oreskes, N., Shrader-Frechette, K. & Belitz, K. Science 263, 641–646 (1994).
Kingston, D. G., Thompson, J. R. & Kite, G. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 15, 1459–1471 (2011).
Stern, N. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review 692 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).
Lenton, T. M. Nature Clim. Change 1, 201–209 (2011).
Valdes, P. Nature Geosci. 4, 414–416 (2011).
Rowlands, D. J. et al. Nature Geosci. 5, 256–260 (2012).
Schmittner, A. et al. Science 334, 1385–1388 (2011).
Joshi, M., Hawkins, E., Sutton, R., Lowe, J. & Frame, D. Nature Clim. Change 1, 407–412 (2011).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Maslin, M., Austin, P. Climate models at their limit?. Nature 486, 183–184 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/486183a
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/486183a
This article is cited by
-
Interannual variability of diurnal temperature range in CMIP6 projections and the connection with large-scale circulation
Climate Dynamics (2024)
-
Analysis of rainfall seasonality in Pernambuco, Brazil
Theoretical and Applied Climatology (2023)
-
Vulnerability Assessment of Wheat Yield Under Warming Climate in Northern India Using Multi-model Projections
International Journal of Plant Production (2022)
-
Advances and challenges in climate modeling
Climatic Change (2022)
-
Future projection for climate extremes in the North China plain using multi-model ensemble of CMIP5
Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics (2022)
Andrew R. Holguin
I just finished reading "Uncertainty: Climate models at their limit?" by Mark Maslin & Patrick Austin. Interesting article, according to the latest climate models sometime between 2040 and 2100 we will see a 2 degree raise in the earth's temperature, maybe. Apparently, the only thing certain about these climate models is that if we take them seriously we will spend tens of trillions of dollars fighting climate change (with unknown results) and in the process drive millions of people from the lower middle-class into poverty and millions of poor people into abject poverty. And proponents wonder why there is push back to Climate Warming.
Philip De Groot
Congratulations to the authors for describing the scientific process, its power, and the extent to which public and policy makers do not understand it. The modern world is built on technology that is the outcome of scientific investigation. Philosophers and mathematicians seek proof. Scientists seek evidence because absolute proof is very elusive. Those unfamiliar with the scientific method assume that scientists operate in a world of certainty. This assumption is dangerous. Scientists operate in a world of fluctuating levels of confidence that a given theory is correct (or not). Maslin and Austin seek a way to reveal to the public that scientific uncertainty is not evidence that science is unreliable. Climate models teach us a great deal and the models continue to improve. There is a very large body of data being generated by people studying climate. Much of that data supports the theory that global warming is occurring, that human activity is contributing to it, and that the consequences are likely to be severe. There are no guarantees. This is science. It is an amalgam of educated guesses. More evidence leads to better educated guesses. The real question is not whether or not science has proven that anthropogenic global warming is upon us. The real question is whether or not one wants to "bet against" this theory.
Then there is the question of the size of the bet. This is something that those "betting on" the theory need to examine. Converting from cheap energy to expensive energy will reduce humankind's productivity which may actually limit our ability to deal with the future consequences.
Ralph Feltens
@ Philip De Groot
This is a very good, conscise summary of the situation concerning what scientist can and cannot (ultimate proofs, ultimate truths, unfailable predictions) achieve and the generally skewed public awareness and expectations surrounding this topic.
However, when you bring up the "size of the bet" and the question of "cheap" vs."expensive" energy, which is a question that can only be answered in the context of political (and, ultimately, moral) descisions, I would like to add the following thoughts:
* How "cheap" is current energy production really? Take into account direct as well as hidden subsidies (e.g. tax exemptions), and take into account the environmental pollution, the severe health impacts and especially long-lasting impacts such as climate change and radioactive contamination for generations to come. (Aren't we responsible for them? Should maintaining / improving our own standard of living be higher on our priority list than the living standards of our successors?)
* The "cheap" energy is going to become more and more expensive as fuel reserves are dwindling, whereas "expensive" renewable energy becomes continuously cheaper. Change is inevitable; however, is it a good idea to procrastinate as long as possible?
* What does "cheap" actually mean for conventional energy: is it really cheap for the consumer, or is it simply cheap for the suppliers? At least here in Europe, with only a handful of big players in the market and cartel-like structures everywhere, they make imipressive profits from the money the consumers have to pay for gas, electricity, oil, gasoline ...
* Who will loose the most when a society shifts towards a multitude of small, local energy production facilities that have become available these days to almost everyone in the form of wind and solar power?
Robert Dickinson
In their article on the limits of climate models, Maslin and Austin report that the latest climate models appear to generate a wider range of projections than previous generations even though they are more sophisticated. They suggest that this may be the result of fundamental limitations rather than something that can be eliminated over time with ever more sophisticated models and the consumption of ever larger amounts of computing power. As they point out, many of the questions climate models are being asked to answer can be usefully reframed as when various climatic developments will occur rather than if they will occur. Their observations highlight the value of risk management tools for assessing impacts from and planning adaptation to climate change. These tools include scenario planning techniques as well as statistical models derived from ensembles of model outputs and can help decision makers deal with uncertainties in both the magnitude and timing of changes in climate variables and extreme events. Both have already been used for climate adaptation planning and are likely to see more extensive use in the future.
Robert V. Dickinson Climate Strategy Advisors, LLC, Menlo Park, California, USA. bob@climatestrategyadvisors.com