95% of climate models agree: the observations must be wrong
drroyspencer.com
95% of climate models agree: the observations must be wrong
1–10 of 157 posts
Re: 95% of climate models agree: the observations must be wrong
#2Thou shalt not make a graph without error bars.
In that respect, the error here belongs entirely to whoever made that graph in the first place. They plotted all those models together to try to convince the reader that all models point to doom. But in doing so without error bars, they implied a level of confidence for specific years that was entirely absent from the models.
Re: 95% of climate models agree: the observations must be wrong
#3Thou shalt not make a graph without error bars. In that respect, the error here belongs entirely to whoever made that graph in the first place. They plotted all those models together to try to convince the reader that all models point to doom. But in doing so without error bars, they implied a level of confidence for specific years that was entirely absent from the models.
In principle, ok, but you wouldn't be able to see anything if that graph also included error bars for 100 climate models.
Re: 95% of climate models agree: the observations must be wrong
#4I don't know enough about meteorology to comment on the article, but this quote bugged me:
"And if humans are the cause of only, say, 50% of the warming (e.g. our published paper), then there is even less reason to force expensive and prosperity-destroying energy policies down our throats."
No, there's the exact same amount of reason. This isn't a morality play, who's "fault" it is doesn't matter. If there were a meteor heading towards us on a collision course, would we reason against sending Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck to stop it because it wasn't caused by us?
Re: 95% of climate models agree: the observations must be wrong
#595% of the climate models could also be wrong. Prior information could be wrong. Almost no atmosphere models resolve cloud cover properly.
Making sweeping statements like this is not encouraged in the scientific community. Now, that's not say we can't learn something from this graph. But to learn more, detail is needed in how the graph was generated. There's more to this than meets the eye.
I'm willing to be wrong, but I'd like to see all the facts first.
Re: 95% of climate models agree: the observations must be wrong
#6This is very interesting.. I'd like to hear more from experts in the field. I was never fully convinced that global warming was that bad. But then again I have always taken it for granted that we caused it, and that it has great effects on humans and animals.
Re: 95% of climate models agree: the observations must be wrong
#7Thou shalt not make a graph without error bars. In that respect, the error here belongs entirely to whoever made that graph in the first place. They plotted all those models together to try to convince the reader that all models point to doom. But in doing so without error bars, they implied a level of confidence for specific years that was entirely absent from the models.
In principle, ok, but you wouldn't be able to see anything if that graph also included error bars for 100 climate models.
You can't really see anything with 100 climate models without error bars. While your statement may be correct, the point is entirely moot.
Re: 95% of climate models agree: the observations must be wrong
#8Thou shalt not make a graph without error bars. In that respect, the error here belongs entirely to whoever made that graph in the first place. They plotted all those models together to try to convince the reader that all models point to doom. But in doing so without error bars, they implied a level of confidence for specific years that was entirely absent from the models.
In principle, ok, but you wouldn't be able to see anything if that graph also included error bars for 100 climate models.
The "article" relies entirely on this faulty graph, and then draws spurious conclusions... The graph by itself may be forgivable, but surrounded by this pattern of faulty thinking it is just one more piece of nonsense.
Re: 95% of climate models agree: the observations must be wrong
#9This is where the guy loses me: "then there is even less reason to force expensive and prosperity-destroying energy policies down our throats" and "increase energy prices and freeze and starve more poor people to death for the greater good"
As if he gives a crap about poor people. People freeze not because of energy policies but because we have poor social welfare and exploitive foreign policy that itself is motivated by self serving right wingers who are exactly the people denying global warming. Pretending to care about the poor to make this point is frankly disgusting.
Re: 95% of climate models agree: the observations must be wrong
#10I don't know enough about meteorology to comment on the article, but this quote bugged me: "And if humans are the cause of only, say, 50% of the warming (e.g. our published paper), then there is even less reason to force expensive and prosperity-destroying energy policies down our throats." No, there's the exact same amount of reason. This isn't a morality play, who's "fault" it is doesn't matter. If there were a met…
> No, there's the exact same amount of reason. This isn't a morality play, who's "fault" it is doensn't matter.
Of course it matters -- in terms of the amount of impact human activity has on the climate. The less impact it has, the less beneficial you can expect energy policies to be to the environment. Since these policies have a non-trivial cost in terms of human suffering (less energy for heating, growing food, etc.), it is crucial to estimate their effectiveness.