Only have a 5 percent chance of avoiding ‘dangerous’ global warming
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
Reading the paper, they make a big deal about the out of sample testing - but given that there is a clear trend, is anybody surprised the model fits? Do you even need a fancy Bayesian hierarchical model or would a regression have predicted the same thing.
To top it off there's not mention of the CO2 cycle and the forces sucking CO2 out of the air they just assume the CO2 is cumulatively stasis in the air for perpetuity.
Shit like this, wins you great points with the environmentalists, who want ammo to throw at polluters. I get it - pollution is shit. But we shouldn't use falsehoods to achieve an outcome even if it's a good outcome. This is the reason why there is growing discontent for climate science. We need it now more than ever, but the academic community just publishes bullshit and yells at us if we doubt the veracity of their models.
We've had a period of cooling that none of their models have predicted, and instead of saying, hey we aren't that good at modelling, they and everyone else who went all-in politically on these models have started a hate campaign against skepticism.
It's a strange world where scientists use the word 'skeptic' as a derogatory term.
Because bill nye, leonardo di caprio and Al Gore told us it is 100% correct and they are the greatest scientists in human history.
It's crazy how this global warming political movement has hijack science to push their agenda.
> We've had a period of cooling that none of their models have predicted, and instead of saying, hey we aren't that good at modelling, they and everyone else who went all-in politically on these models have started a hate campaign against skepticism.
It's funny how model after model has proven rather suspect and yet you will get called anti-science or a denier if you don't accept their model 100% without question.
If only the global warming movement had more humility of scientists rather than the total conviction of a cult members, I'd take them more seriously. And if they were more honest about the data and the science of climate rather than lying about it.
Do you suppose that environmental activists are more likely to achieve their important objective of dramatically reducing carbon emissions by admitting even mild uncertainties in the rationale for their position in effort to appeal to educated, reasoned people like you, or by adhering to a steadfast narrative, increasingly accepted by the masses, that anthropogenic climate change is creating a severe risk to the welfare of people the world around?
Certainly no match for master scientists like James Inhofe, Christopher Monckton, or Donald Trump.
I'm not sure what you're referring to. I did a search for some citations, and I found this:
"The observed slow-down in the global-mean surface temperature (GST) warming from 1998 to 2012 has been called a “warming hiatus.” Certain climate models, operating under experiments which simulate warming by increasing radiative forcing, have been shown to reproduce periods which resemble the observed hiatus."
- https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijas/2016/9657659/
So, that's describing a slowing down of the warming... which is still not cooling, it's just warming slower. And it was predicted by many models.
Furthermore, a climate model doesn't need to reproduce every bump and dip to be credible. It just has to give a range within future predictions can be judged. And there are lots of models that have predicted events which were later observed and point at multiple degrees of warming in the future.
If you can point to a specific observation, I'd be very curious to look at the models, though, and see if you're correct that the observation is outside the predicted range of the model.
As for skeptics, I think skepticism is great. I'm skeptical of you. This web site is skeptical of you and it's called skeptical science: https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm Science is, for the most part, incredibly skeptical of past models. That's how we've gotten such good models.
The thing is, you aren't being skeptical. You are regurgitating a bunch of BS from politicians and bloggers with zero thought. We haven't had a period of cooling and scientists are well aware of forces sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere, if you were remotely skeptical you would know this already.
There is a huge variety of models spanning the gamut of complexity. This analysis is for one. It's about adding to the literature.
> Reading the paper, they make a big deal about the out of sample testing - but given that there is a clear trend, is anybody surprised the model fits? Do you even need a fancy Bayesian hierarchical model or would a regression have predicted the same thing.
Again, they probably don't need the Bayesian model, and regression models have been explored thoroughly in the literature. This is simply another tool, and another data point.
> To top it off there's not mention of the CO2 cycle and the forces sucking CO2 out of the air they just assume the CO2 is cumulatively stasis in the air for perpetuity.
I feel like a broken record, but there have been studies on this as well. Further, cumulative emmisions are an important indicator. See: http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1704.abstract
> This is the reason why there is growing discontent for climate science. We need it now more than ever, but the academic community just publishes bullshit and yells at us if we doubt the veracity of their models.
Erm, this paper fully acknowledges the fact that it's a completely statistical model, and the many ways that it could be completely incorrect. If anything, blame Nature for publishing it, not the authors for doing the work.
How many climate modeling papers have you read? They are not all statistically based (in fact many of the big oness are completely process based if that makes you happy). Much of the literature is aimed directly at addressing both uncertainty and error, and if you actually speak to anyone doing the work they will most certainly drone you half to death about things they wish they could fix/take into account.
> We've had a period of cooling that none of their models have predicted, and instead of saying, hey we aren't that good at modelling, they and everyone else who went all-in politically on these models have started a hate campaign against skepticism.
Ugh, I'm not even going to address this one. Someone else did a good enough job already.
> It's a strange world where scientists use the word 'skeptic' as a derogatory term.
Let's be clear here - that term is a propaganda technique used to astroturf and whitewash. I agree, it's unfortunate terminology, but it's not the fault of the scientists.
I'm calling your bluff on this one, because I think you're simply parroting things and have no sources, examples, or proof.
Your silence would only serve to prove me right, please don't pretend you haven't read this like you have with every other reply.
I'm gonna come in here with a wildly unpopular statement: some people are just not worth listening to.
As pointed out by jamaz1, when you see what they left out or forget to mention and you are skeptical about what they are presenting, now you are the stupid one. This alienates me even further. I'm not a climate scientists and even if you gave me all of the raw data to analyse I wouldn't be able to draw the correct conclusions. I NEED to be able to trust those that can to make sense of it, but I don't trust them. So there is the monster they created because they thought there were justified in not telling the whole truth.
Since I'm not going to figure it out on my own and I don't trust those who are able to, what do I do? I go on with my life, and resist any effort that will cost me any money or freedom to make a change, that frankly may be necessary. All because of lack of trust.