Earth will take 100,000 years to recover from global warming say geologists

[tex-wyo-dem]

Earth will take 100,000 years to recover from global warming say geologists

The Earth will take 100,000 years to recover from global warming if mankind continues to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, geologists have warned.

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
Published: 6:30AM GMT 02 Nov 2010


A conference organised by the Geological Society in London this week will bring together scientists from around the world to look at how the world coped with climate change in the past.

<snip>

“The impacts will be pretty severe compared to 55 million years ago in terms of evolution of this planet,” he said.

The Geological Society warned that it could take the Earth 100,000 years to recover.

A statement read: “The geological evidence from the 55 million year event and from earlier warming episodes suggests that such an addition is likely to raise average global temperatures by at least 5 to 6C, and possibly more, and that recovery of the Earth’s climate in the absence of mitigation measures could take 100,000 years or more. Numerical models of the climate system support such an interpretation. In the light of the evidence presented here it is reasonable to conclude that emitting further large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere over time is likely to be unwise, uncomfortable though that fact may be.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/8102821/Earth-will-take-100000-years-to-recover-from-global-warming-say-geologists.html

[Ozymanithrax]

1. In other words, don't pack a lunch, but move to higher ground and higher

latitudes.

[meow mix]

3. oxygen levels too low, 500ft would be like Mt Everest

in a bad case scenario

[Ozymanithrax]

4. In that case we will just exhale ourselves to death. n/t

[guardian]

11. Another doomer fantasy

"oxygen levels too low, 500ft would be like Mt Everest"

So from which orifice did you pull that gem? So the oxygen level at 500 feet will soon be equivalent to the current oxygen level at 29,000 feet? When will this occur? Next month? Next year? 2012? Which AGW doomer acolyte predicts this? Perhaps the famed cartoonist Peter Jacques? Or is this just your own private doomer fantasy?

The stupidity of the doomer adherents is staggering. Yet those that claim to be 'reasonable' and base their views only upon 'peer reviewed scientific' data NEVER criticize this sort of idiocy. They just sit back quietly and enjoy the doomer hyperbole and wonder why more and more people are questioning the whole concept of AGW. When those AGW proponents don't slap down doomer craziness with the same vehemence that they seem to reserve for those who question AGW then you are no different than the doomers themselves.

Quick. Time to pop in your DVD of Day After Tomorrow or 2012 for a little doomer doctrine reinforcement.

[meow mix]

12. actually i was just making a comparison with the permian extinction

which saw lower levels of oxygen than what i said.

thanks for such a hateful comment for no reason though? lol very constructive

[guardian]

13. No. You are just a doomer fantasizing about the destruction of

the earth and/or humans.

So WHY did you make a comparison to the permian extinction?

1. Did the article referenced in the OP mention it? NO
2. Is anyone claiming AGW will result in oxygen levels that low? NO
3. Is there any rational reason to compare modern day AGW with oxygen levels during the permian extinction? NO
4. Are you a doomer injecting an invalid comparison of a doomsday scenario? YES

Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo How "constructive" was your invalid comparison? How much "reason" did your bringing up some abstract unrelated event bring to table? I spit on this moronic doomer mindset. Someone will be discussing some study saying that sea level may POSSIBLY rise by 13cm, and then some doomer like you jumps in some apocalyptic scenario just to promote the supposed dire nature AGW when the discussion was about some minor potential consequence.

[meow mix]

14. was just making an off-the-cuff remark lol

it seemed appropriate judging from the time-scales mentioned in the post. i dunno why you want a huge fight over it or something but whatever lol

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Croquist]

37. As a skeptic I apologize for guardian's remark

but your statement is simply not true and calling it a "an off-the-cuff remark" doesn't excuse it.

Currently the atmosphere (ignoring water vapor) is composed of:

Nitrogen (N2) 78.084%
Oxygen (O2) 20.946%
Argon (Ar) 0.9340%
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 0.039%

and lots of other trace gases.

This is real simplistic:

If you burn a carbon based molecule (Oil, Coal, wood ect.) you basically take away one O2 molecule for each molecule of CO2 you create.
C + O2 = CO2

That means that if you double CO2 from 0.039% to 0.078% you drop O2 by 0.039% or from 20.946% to 20.907% or a drop of 0.186% of the O2 level in the atmosphere.

[meow mix]

46. many events will take place,

i think your formula is overly simplistic just sayin =)

for instance how would dead bacteria filled oceans, affect the outcome?

Atmospheric Hydrogen Sulfide
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050223130549.htm


scary thing is this is already happening off the coast of africa.

[jpak]

18. Deniers are the craziest people

yup

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. This is wrong in more than one way

First, as noted, the article says nothing about oxygen levels dropping.

It does talk about increasing the CO2 levels, and one might say that each molecule of CO2 will replace a molecule of O2 in the atmosphere. If that's how it happens, then the 5,000 gigatons of CO2 (strictly, it's 'greenhouse gases', ie the equivalent of 5,000 gigatons of CO2), will replace 32/44*5,000 = 3,600 gigatons of oxygen. However, the oxygen in the atmosphere is about a million gigatons, so the decrease in oxygen would be about 3.6% of its total. That would be the equivalent of going up about 1,000 feet.

Secondly, you then say "the permian extinction ... saw lower levels of oxygen than what i said". The drop in atmospheric oxygen in the Permian wasn't anything like going up to the height of Everest. It dropped from about 30% to 15%, compared with today's 21%. 15 is 71% of 21; from the table of height and atmospheric pressure above, that's the equivalent of going up 9,000 ft. So not Everest; Quito, the capital of Ecuador.

[meow mix]

22. what is gonna happen after 100,000 years oven-like conditions w/ reduced plant life?

i was assuming a similar effect as in the past lol..

but since im wrong now im just wondering how this will increase oxygen levels?

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. 5 to 6 degrees hotter isn't 'oven-like'

It could turn some areas into deserts; but it could also increase the plant life elsewhere (eg Antarctica). If you've found anything from climate science saying that oxygen levels are predicted to fall significantly, then tell us about it. But "assuming a similar effect as in the past" is unwise; conditions then were different (eg the configuration of continents, the type of plant life, and what caused any increase of CO2).

I never said oxygen levels would increase, so I'll just take your last sentence as a strawman.

[meow mix]

2. morlocs

thats a long time to live underground

[ladjf]

5. Well then. What are we so worried about. nt

[txlibdem]

6. I've never been worried about the Earth

It'll be around long after we're gone.

Human extinction? Now that's another story.

[stuntcat]

8. that's said a lot

that humans can't wipe out the Earth, many times it's said here, many many many


That doesn't do anything to make me feel better about my species wiping out so many beautiful species, my heart is still crushed and I am ashamed of being human.

But Earth will be fine :party: No question of that!!!! Nope, nosiree, you got that right.

[kestrel91316]

7. It will take a lot longer than that for our biodiversity to return.

[stuntcat]

9. +1

I'm convinced most of the bald monkeys can't imagine why this matters.

[GliderGuider]

10. This is what makes reading about sustainability and ecological footprints so disheartening

Even among the wise and well-meaning there is a relentlessly anthropocentric perspective.

Say I do I get my footprint down to a "sustainable" 1.8 gha - what has happened to all the other life that used to use that 1.8 gha?

Even if the support of 6.8 billion humans were to be within the carrying capacity of the planet, what about the other species that used to need some of it as well? :shrug:

[PavePusher]

28. Species come and go...

sometimes entirely without our intervention.

99.9% (WAG) of all species that ever existed have gone extinct. Humans have had an impact on only a small, small fraction of that number.

[GliderGuider]

30. Agreed.

When I'm in an expanded, universalist mood I'm quite OK with that idea. Then I go through a contraction and I get all attached to life...

[stuntcat]

41. I get all attached

yeah, I can't help but feel ashamed that my species is wiping out otherwise healthy vital animals. No amount of words will excuse this in my soft petty little brain.

Next comes the, "but we can't destroy the Earth!!" oh that line NEVER gets old :eyes:

[GliderGuider]

21. What makes it "our" biodiversity? And why should the earth return to this particular state?

The earth has left behind innumerable states of apparent equilibrium in the past. What would make this one special?

[GliderGuider]

16. Scary, yes? Maybe not so much...

The article as written shows a couple of fairly bogus assumptions in play:

"Prof Zachos said that if the world continues to pump out greenhouse gases at the current rate, around 5,000 gigatons of greenhouse gases will be released into the atmosphere over a few hundred years."

There is not enough fossil fuel remaining to generate 5 teratons of CO2. Based on a quick look at the current estimates of world oil, gas and coal reserves, we only have enough to produce 1 teraton of CO2, or one fifth of the amount they're talking about here. B\Not to mention that the rate of use is going to decline as oil, coal and gas become harder to produce and more expensive.

"... recovery of the Earth’s climate in the absence of mitigation measures could take 100,000 years or more.

Right. As if we're going to sit idly by and not do squat as the world changes before our eyes... Wait, what?

OK, so at least one of the assumptions is bogus.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. Sadly, there are a lot more coal reserves than your figure

We have, for instance, an estimate of recoverable resources of 980 billion tons of coal in 2006. 12 tons of carbon produces 44 tons of carbon dioxide; that works out at about 3,400 gigatons of CO2 from the coal, ignoring gas or oil. Note that the page explains that 'estimated recoverable resources' are recoverable with today's technology, and are less than the 'demonstrated reserve base' ("coal that could be mined commercially at a given time"), which is less than 'identified resources', which is less than the estimate for total resources, which includes a guess for the coal as yet undiscovered.

In the US, recoverable resources are 262 billion tons, the that 'estimated recoverable resources' are recoverable with today's technology, and are less than the 'demonstrated reserve base 488 billions tons, and identified resources 1,674 billion tons. If those ratios are at all similar in the rest of the world, there's easily enough identified coal to put 5,000 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Plus there's a bit of oil and gas, though fairly small in comparison, I believe.

[GliderGuider]

20. There is a range of estimates for world coal reserves

For instance, a couple of years ago Dave Rutledge of Caltech estimated a recovery of 662 billion tons.

World Coal Reserves Could Be a Fraction of Previous Estimates

The new model, created by Dave Rutledge, chair of Caltech’s engineering and applied sciences division, suggests that humans will only pull up a total — including all past mining — of 662 billion tons of coal out of the Earth. The best previous estimate, from the World Energy Council, says that the world has almost 850 billion tons of coal still left to be mined.

"Every estimate of the ultimate coal resource has been larger," said ecologist Ken Caldeira of Stanford University, who was not involved with the new study. "But if there’s much less coal than we think, that’s good news for climate."

In an abstract on Dave Rutledge's Caltech web site we find this:

For world oil and gas production, the fit for the ultimate is 640Gtoe (billion metric tons of oil equivalent). This is somewhat larger than the sum of cumulative production and reserves, 580Gtoe. Because future discoveries are not included in the reserves, it is to be expected that our fit would be larger. (...) For world coal, the sum of the fits for regional ultimate production is 660Gt (billion metric tons). This is considerably less than the sum of cumulative production and reserves, 1,100Gt, but it is consistent with the British experience, where until recently, reserves were a large multiple of future production. The projection is that we will have consumed half of the ultimate world oil, gas, and coal production by 2019. (...) When these projections are converted to carbon equivalents, the projected future emissions from burning oil, gas, and coal from 2005 on are 520GtC. (...) These projections, if correct, are good news for climate change.

Converting that calculation of 520 GtC to CO2 we come out with about 2 teratons of CO2 left to produce. That's more than my initial estimate, but still far below the 5 teratons of the original article. Of course it may be that the original article meant that 5 teratons of CO2 would be released in total. In that case we are about halfway home, and the 2 teratons we have left to produce is the second half of the bell curve.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the carbon release on the second half of the curve will be at a constantly diminishing rate, and that will give the natural carbon cycle more time to sequester it in the oceans. That will change the oceans, of course.

An important point to consider is that all natural systems are dynamic, and the idea that the earth will "recover" at all is a strange and anthropocentric idea. The earth has gone through a number of states of relative equilibrium in the past. It has departed from each of them for various reasons, never to return. The idea that the state the earth is in right now is somehow a "preferred" state to which it should recover after our disturbance is a very parochial perspective.

Frankly, every doomer perception has at its base a foundation of fear and parochialism, and I have been equally guilty of nurturing such a warped outlook. Since there has never been any inherent natural preference for any particular world state, I see no reason to fear future changes, even if they are "unrecoverable". Bring on the future, sez I!

[PavePusher]

25. Another thing to remind the... ignorant... of:

All the carbon in the coal was once above ground and in the environment.

Oh noes, it must have ruined everything....!!

[muriel_volestrangler]

33. So you think that all conditions at any time in geological history would be fine for modern society?

This is not about whether some life can survive on the planet; it's whether a population of several billion humans can survive in roughly their present locations, without having to fight each other to get to areas where agriculture on the necessary scale is possible, and without major famines.

Think about what effects changes in temperature, rainfall and sea level will mean. I wouldn't want you to look ... 'ignorant'.

[PavePusher]

35. Humanity has been mobile for it's entire history.

Lack of mass cultural migrations is a very recent, and probably temporary, curiosity.

Changes will mean just... changes. Some places will get hotter, colder, wetter, dryer. And humanity can currently move and adapt faster than ever before in history.

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. Humanity has only been around for a few hundred thousand years

during which time the CO2 level was always lower than it is now. Yet you think that it's important to point out that the carbon in fossil fuels was once in the atmosphere, even though that was millions of years ago, when conditions were very different.

Humanity has a far larger population than ever before, so adaptation is not so easy. And adaptation has, in the past, meant 'survival of the fittest', with short lifespans and a lot of suffering. An individual human may be able to move faster now; that doesn't mean that they are allowed to. I'm not sure if there's a single country in the world that allows unrestricted immigration. The power of states to prevent migration is greater than at any time in history as well.

You seem remarkably blasé about the implications of climate change. "Shit happens" is not a good plan for the future. One that I might call 'ignorant'.

[GliderGuider]

38. Regarding the shit that happens

“Shit happens” may sound fatalistic to western ears, but there is a solid core of truth to the idea. Since the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment the west has developed a cultural narrative based around control. The idea that we can and should take control of events has been embedded so deeply in our psyches that it seems like a law of nature – or at least a law of human nature. Control of the future through planning is a shibboleth of modern civilization. To relinquish this imperative seems tantamount to treachery, an abrogation of one of the sacred founding principles of our civilization, an invitation to chaos, disorder and darkness.

There is another way to look at this attitude of relinquishment though, a lens through which it may be seen more as realism than defeatism. Our control over future events has always been tenuous at best. The military recognizes this reality in the saying “No plan survives first contact with the enemy.” It is enshrined at the most fundamental level of our reality, in QM and chaos theory. Of course plans are useful because they encourage us to recognize the truth of our immediate situation and think about future possibilities. However, risk enters the picture if we behave like an immature military commander and try to stick to “the plan” at all costs, as though it represents the only acceptable course of action. If we are too inflexible unforeseen opportunities may be missed, outcomes may be sub-optimal and people may suffer unnecessarily.

Seen through this lens the question of climate change becomes one with a wide spectrum of legitimate responses. These responses can include: promoting the decarbonization of the global economy through energy substitution; reducing our requirements for energy through conservation and efficiency; changing the peoples’ behaviour to reduce their levels of consumption, travel and other impactful activities; and actively working to oppose and reduce our level of global economic activity either through policy or direct action (i.e. coercion or monkeywrenching).

The controversial part of my position is that I think the decision so simply decline to plan, to choose to sit back and watch the world unfold is similarly legitimate. Far from being a response from ignorance, this can be a response that’s predicated on a very large body of personal knowledge and awareness. After all, holding knowledge and deciding to act are two very different things that spring from different places in the psyche. Curiosity does not automatically imply a desire to influence outcomes. Even discovering that there is a possibility of negative consequences does not mean that we must automatically work to avoid the collapse of that particular probability wave.

Personally, I don't believe either the world or humanity is in need of salvation. We have created some uncomfortable circumstances for ourselves, but I don't believe that anything actually needs to be done to try and change that.

Our situation is what it is. Change is inevitable. The outcomes are inherently unpredictable. The situation has always been out of our control. The idea that we are running the show is a conceit and an illusion embedded in our culture during the 17th and 18th centuries, the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment.

My world view is founded instead on the Buddhist concept of co-dependent arising, or what Thich Nhat Hanh calls “interbeing”. In it there is no subject, no object, no cause, no effect, no control, no powerlessness, no victors, no vanquished, no free will, no predestination – just elements working together to co-create this shared reality.

As a result, I do not feel any need to try to change the course of world events single-handedly. The world exists because of all of us; its course can only be shaped by all of us together. I have no ability to change it on my own. The belief that one has such ability is an egoic illusion that can assume at most a temporary appearance of reality.

I prefer to let destiny take care of itself, because that’s what it has always done anyway. I’m no King Canute, and I see no disrepute attached to that perception.

Others, especially those who are fully embedded in the Cartesian mindset, may such a position odd, unacceptable or even intolerable. They may decline to accommodate the inevitable; they may choose to work to direct the future; they may even choose to work against positions and worldviews like mine. That’s fine with me – the world around us is an emergent construct created by the sum of everything each of us does, no matter what it is.

I would simply ask that we all be be cautious before we casually ascribe to ignorance a perspective that merely differs from our own.

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. I disagree that the world's "course can only be shaped by all of us together"

If that were true, then the course can never be altered, because we will never all act together. Each of us ultimately acts on our own - we cannot alter people's minds for them, and even when several act as a group (eg the government of a country) to try to force the actions of others (eg unwilling members of the country), they cannot do it for the whole world. And we will never get complete agreement among the world's population on any action.

There are, therefore, individual decisions to be made. You cannot say "this decision must be made by us all", because some will refuse to take part constructively.

I agree that casually ascribing to ignorance a perspective that merely differs from our own is a problem; however, PavePusher was the one who brought in the use of 'ignorant' to describe others, in #25, and it seemed aimed at anyone who thought more CO2 in the atmosphere might cause problems.

[GliderGuider]

40. It's a bit paradoxical

I see human civilization (and at a deeper level reality itself) as an emergent property that unfolds moment by moment from the aggregation of individual actions. From that perspective the question of free will vs. predestination becomes somewhat nebulous. The current moment is all that we have access to, as the past is gone and the future hasn’t yet arrived. To make matters worse, the present simply is what it is, and even the plans we make in the present have no existence in the future we imagine they will influence.

The paradox comes in because it sure seems as though we can make plans that have an effect on the future. In a sense I consider the view that planning affects the future to be a useful illusion. Because it’s useful I partake in it, but because it’s an illusion I decline to believe in it completely.

The dynamic interplay among all our individual actions and plans here in the present is what gives the future its specific shape when it becomes the present. In a sense, civilization is a self-organizing neural network – hard to predict and even harder to control, but no less entrancing for all that.

This is a decidedly non-western point of view, perhaps more suited to inner exploration than to making stuff. However, I’ve found that it really helps when I see shit happening and I’m feeling torn up because I feel a need to control it yet can’t find the levers. I can remind myself that the idea that there are levers is just another part of the illusion.

YMMV.

[NickB79]

31. How much carbon is locked up in permafrost and methane clathrate deposits?

There are approximately 1000 gigatons of carbon locked up in frozen permafrost. Methane frozen under the ocean has been estimated at between 3000-20,000 gigatons of carbon.

I'm wondering if Prof. Zachos wasn't talking about humanity directly releasing all the 5000 gigatons of carbon, but also took into account positive feedback mechanisms kicking in?

[GliderGuider]

32. That would make sense, but I don't know for sure. nt

nt

[PavePusher]

24. How long is the average period between glaciation surges? (i.e. "Ice Ages) n/t

[Dead_Parrot]

26. Similar sort of timescale, but with a bit of variation

The "recent" glaciation/interglacials are combinations of lots of cycles adding up so it's not too regular, but the last glaciantion started ~110 kya, the previous ~200 kya, and the previous ~300 to 380 kya (it gets vague).

We were about due for another in the next few millenia, but there's not much chance of that now.

[PavePusher]

27. Well, I'm guessing for the sake of most of humanity...

a little warming would be a lot easier to deal with than an Ice Age.

Just sayin'...

[Dead_Parrot]

29. I wouldn't count on it.

Glacial periods start and stop quickly by geological standards, but you don't wake up one morning to find glaciers rolling over Nebraska: it still takes thousands or tens of thousands of years to kick in - time enough for species (including hairless apes) to adapt. On the other hand, We're yanking the climate to a whole new level in a couple of decades, and it's going to catch us out in all sorts of ways.

[Nederland]

34. The hubris on display is stunning

Do these people really think we understand the Earth well enough to predict what things will be like 100,000 years into the future? As soon as we start getting 5 and 10 year forecasts correct maybe then we can talk about predictions about what things will be like 100,000 years from now...

[guardian]

42. "The hubris on display is stunning"

"Do these people really think we understand the Earth well enough to predict what things will be like 100,000 years into the future?"

Yes, they do.

Who cares about a track record? It doesn't matter that nearly every other prediction they've made has been wrong. Damn the torpedoes! Full steam ahead! I'M SAVING THE PLANET AND I'M BETTER THAN YOU. Now if I can just reach around to pat myself on the back....

[Nihil]

44. I prefer a touch of hubris to the blatant ignorance that you consistently present. (n/t)

[Nederland]

45. Oh please

Expressing skepticism at the ability of people that cannot get a 10 year sea level projection right to accurately predict things 100,000 years into the future is not hubris. It is common sense.

[Nihil]

47. Can you please re-read this sub-thread ...

... seeing as it was YOUR post that stated that it was hubris in the first place?

Now you are saying it is not hubris?

:crazy:

(ETA: In addition, note that I replied to _you_ below whereas my somewhat
terser response was to "guardian".)

[guardian]

48. my somewhat terser response was to "guardian"

I feel special. I'm warm and tingly all over.

[Nederland]

49. I think you need to learn to read (nt)

[Nihil]

50. .

(Doesn't matter - have a nice day.)

[Nihil]

43. They've got a better chance at the 100,000 year prediction than at the 10 ...

> As soon as we start getting 5 and 10 year forecasts correct maybe then we can
> talk about predictions about what things will be like 100,000 years from now...

The big advantage of the 100,000 year prediction compared to the 5/10 year one
is that they don't have to try to accomodate the drastic & highly unpredictable
effect of human politics (and other interference).

They can look at the historical record to determine how the planet (sans Homo S S)
recovers from a particular condition (regardless of cause) and apply that to the
timescale starting from a similar condition (this time caused/aggravated by humans).

I understand your frustration with the inaccuracies of models but those arise
from the constantly changing playing field at this granularity of timescale.

Over the longer period, existing well-known and proven mechanisms kick in to
facilitate "recovery". The point of such warnings is primarily to wake people up
to the idea that they (as a nation/culture/empire/whatever) will almost certainly
not survive either the symptoms or the cure if no attempt is made towards
self-imposed moderation.

[Nederland]

51. How can you know that the models are correct?

The entire process of Science involves formulating a theory, making a prediction, and then comparing the predicted results to the actual results. Given that the short term predictions that can be tested and validated are wrong, what is your empirical basis for claiming that the long term ones will be better? Not to be rude, but it sounds more like faith than science.

[Nihil]

52. Granularity has a major impact on perceived accuracy

The "100,000 year model" is drawn from real geological data from many
"100,000 year" periods and so has no claim to model any particular
5 year period within them. The models predict the response from a
particular set of conditions and that response has been compared to
the actual data from the corresponding "following" period. If it was
accurate then all well & good, testing can continue. If not, the model
would be revised until it became accurate.

This is the predict/examine/validate cycle that justifies the long-term
predictions (the "100,000 year model" starting about now). It has been
validated over the correct historical timescale.

The problems come when attempting to model at a finer-grain level.
There isn't a sufficiently long baseline (i.e., fine-grain data over
a corresponding length to the coarse data used for the longer term
validated models) to get the necessary degree of accuracy.

The trends match but the presence or absence of small variations from
trend line are the issues that are picked on as "failings" by critics.
Yes, some of them will be genuine failures of the model - failures that
will be addressed by refining the model - but many will be the sole
effect of looking at a "smooth hair" with a microscope: granularity is
a genuine issue.

The long term predictions are more reliable as they can be compared to
many corresponding periods in the past.

Short term predictions have no such luxury and so are inherently less
reliable when the events that control them are still fluid.

Short term models tend to rely on lab work that - by definition - cannot
completely reproduce the real world events (either in scale or complexity).

Long term ones rely on historical fact. That is why they are more accurate.