101–110 of 242 posts
What about the 50 year old models that predicted a looming global cooling? Why were they wrong?
We did address smog. Without growing smog, those models predicted warming.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
India and China are not against fighting climate change together. What they need is fairness. CO2-equivivalents per capita is the fair measure stick (maybe adjusted to imported and exported co2eq) Government level climate skepticism is mainly problem in Anglo-Saxon countries. China and India are enemies and competitors but they work together in energy sector. They are trying to push renewables and nuclear. It's just…
Skepticism of the government is part of the culture. Don't trust bureaucrats further than the rope you need to hang them
Where is the story hère though? So they looked retroactively and found some models in the past that fitted with current observations even though they had no clue that China would become such a powerful force in terms of CO2 emissions? If you run random models and wait long enough you will always be able to find at least one model that predicted the current observations. That does NOT mean the models were right, it me…
Your comment contains hypotheticals ("run random models and wait long enough you will always be able to find at least one model that predicted the current observations") that are NOT what the present study did. As noted in TFA, they looked at 17 forecasts from 14 models and found that the temperature predictions of 10 of them were consistent with what has happened in the meantime. And if you adjust for forcing (CO2,…
Pardon a little pedantry:
>> The researchers compared annual average surface temperatures across the globe to the surface temperatures predicted in 17 forecasts. Those predictions were drawn from 14 separate computer models released between 1970 and 2001. In some cases, the studies and their computer codes were so old that the team had to extract data published in papers, using special software to gauge the exact numbers represented by points on a printed graph.
They compared annual average surface temperatures across the globe to 17 forecasts, from 14 separate models.
But....how many models did they look at, before choosing those particular 14 models?
TFA doesn't say.
Articles written in this style provide rich fodder for conspiracy theorists, particularly because there is no shortage of examples in the past where authoritative, trustworthy organizations have gotten caught in lies. Rare is the climate change article I've read that can't easily have similar holes poked in it.
What's the real truth here? Based on the literal content of this article, no one knows. It is speculation vs speculation.
I've said it before, and I will say it again: if your persuasion tactics aren't working, it might be worth considering whether you should change your tactics.
Where is the story hère though? So they looked retroactively and found some models in the past that fitted with current observations even though they had no clue that China would become such a powerful force in terms of CO2 emissions? If you run random models and wait long enough you will always be able to find at least one model that predicted the current observations. That does NOT mean the models were right, it me…
>Where is the story here though? The motive here is the "trust climate scientists now because they've been right about everything all along" narrative. There's no other reason for it.
Standard conservative responses: --The globe is not getting warmer --We don't know if the globe is getting warmer or not --We do know the globe is getting warmer, but we don't know why --We do know the globe is getting warmer, but it has a different cause than human activities --We do know the globe is getting warmer, and it is in part due to human activities, but any action to counter this would be more harmful than…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it really true that the scientific concensus was in favor of ice age in the 70s? I have heard people say this before but I have never seen the historical evidence.
Nah. In 1974 and 1975, Time and Newsweek respectively ran articles proposing a global cooling trend. These articles were (loosely) based on a couple of papers that found that if fine-particulate atmospheric aerosols continued to increase the way they were, they could reflect away enough sunlight to cause surface cooling. (And in fact, exactly that was happening during the 70s.) However, the Clean Air Act and other si…
You just found a solution to global warming. Since you agree that particulate aerosols in the air were going to cause an ice age and the Clean Air Act would fix that, then the Clean Air Act is what has contributed more than anything else to global warming. Repeal the Clean Air Act, reintroduce those old aerosols, and the problem is solved. The global cooling certainty cancels out the global warming certainty and normalcy is achieved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it really true that the scientific concensus was in favor of ice age in the 70s? I have heard people say this before but I have never seen the historical evidence.
It's rubbish that science predicted an ice age in the 70s. The vast majority of peer reviewed studies predicted a rise in global temperatures due to a rise in CO2. There were a few studies that predicted an incoming ice age, but they were by far the minority. And these studies were based on predictions of the composition of the atmosphere which did not pan out, where the CO2 predictions have been on point.
CO2 atmospheric levels are way below what was predicted because huge amounts of CO2 was absorbed by the oceans. This has wrecked havoc on the oceans, but the point is that the predictions of atmospheric levels were absolutely wrong because they did not account for the ocean absorption effect.
Where is the story hère though? So they looked retroactively and found some models in the past that fitted with current observations even though they had no clue that China would become such a powerful force in terms of CO2 emissions? If you run random models and wait long enough you will always be able to find at least one model that predicted the current observations. That does NOT mean the models were right, it me…
Why would the models care? In fact world GDP growth has been right on trend since the 60's. It's true that it's concentrated in areas we didn't expect, but that's always true. China did much better than expected, the Americas were right on curve, Europe a little worse and eastern europe in particular fell off a cliff. So what?
Those models surely predicted aggregate carbon output pretty well. Are you saying they didn't?
Where is the story hère though? So they looked retroactively and found some models in the past that fitted with current observations even though they had no clue that China would become such a powerful force in terms of CO2 emissions? If you run random models and wait long enough you will always be able to find at least one model that predicted the current observations. That does NOT mean the models were right, it me…
Yeah, this could be survivorship bias: https://motls.blogspot.com/2017/03/selection-of-climate-mode... As someone who's written basic fluid dynamics codes, I'm blown away by the complexity of climate models. The errors I ran into in debugging my relatively straightforward codes were incredibly subtle. Like pressures, velocities still "looking right" but still being wrong, due to numerical viscosity and other artifact…
Much more work in this direction is needed.