3 ms·

>We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-20

by danjoc 9y ago

>We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations. WOW. And one of the authors is "Hockey Stick" Michael E. Mann himself. These guys can actually admit they were wrong? I honestly never thought I would see the day.

beefield 9y ago
That is the difference between religion and science. It is the very fundamental base of science to be able to be falsifiably wrong. What I do wonder is what it would take for climate change deniers to admit being wrong?
- geekpowa 9y ago
  And what would it take for a climate alarmist to admit they are wrong? With respect, this sort of questioning is tedious and only serves to try and shutdown discussion. Mann's name against this synopsis is really remarkable given his relentless and unyielding rejection of anything that contradicts his held position on climate change being dangerous and imminent. Specifically this very claim that models to not replicate/overstate warming that is observed is something he has spoken out on often. e.g. a paper he co-authors (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064888/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064888/abst...) seeks to square the circle between models and observations. I wonder to what extent the synopsis captures the content of the paper itself or if it is another paper that seeks to explain variation according to Mann's strong preference towards a more aggressive characterisation of climate change effects & impacts.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- Turing_Machine 9y ago
  "That is the difference between religion and science. It is the very fundamental base of science to be able to be falsifiably wrong." Correct. Keep that in mind the next time you hear someone say "the science is settled".
- danjoc 9y ago
  >What I do wonder is what it would take for climate change deniers to admit being wrong? Mann is the fundamental reason "deniers" exist. He produced a model that produced hockey stick graphs with random data. Instead of distancing themselves from Mann, the community (IPCC) fanatically attacked anyone who pointed out the emperor had no clothes. The term "denier" popped out of that politicized controversy. You're still fighting the lost cause by using it. Mann is admitting he was wrong. You're unable to do the same. He should have just said "Oops" in 2003. He had a bug in his program. While it would have been a bit of egg on his face (and the IPCC for publishing), we all understand bugs in code. Instead, he clung to it, hoping observations would match his predictions anyway. This gave his political enemies all the ammunition needed to properly smear the entire scientific community who backed him. We fixed CFCs. We fixed acid rain. Mann, and the IPCC's refusal to disavow him, is the reason there is even a debate anymore. Dogma is the enemy, not the skeptics. Skeptics are a healthy part of the scientific process.
baq 9y ago
Is that news? This isn't Fox, it's Nature.
Brede 9y ago
There are a number of misconceptions regarding 'hide the decline': 1) The "decline" does not refer to a "decline in global temperature" as often claimed. It actually refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitude locations. This decline began in the 1960s when tree-ring proxies diverged from the temperature record. 2) "Mike's Nature trick" has nothing to do with "hide the decline". "Mike's trick" refers to a technique by Michael Mann to plot instrumental temperature data on the same graph as reconstructed data over the past millennium. 3) The divergence of tree-ring proxies from temperatures after 1960 is openly discussed in the peer-reviewed literature and the last two IPCC assessment reports.

by danjoc 9y ago

beefield 9y ago

That is the difference between religion and science. It is the very fundamental base of science to be able to be falsifiably wrong. What I do wonder is what it would take for climate change deniers to admit being wrong?

geekpowa 9y ago
And what would it take for a climate alarmist to admit they are wrong? With respect, this sort of questioning is tedious and only serves to try and shutdown discussion. Mann's name against this synopsis is really remarkable given his relentless and unyielding rejection of anything that contradicts his held position on climate change being dangerous and imminent. Specifically this very claim that models to not replicate/overstate warming that is observed is something he has spoken out on often. e.g. a paper he co-authors (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064888/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064888/abst...) seeks to square the circle between models and observations. I wonder to what extent the synopsis captures the content of the paper itself or if it is another paper that seeks to explain variation according to Mann's strong preference towards a more aggressive characterisation of climate change effects & impacts.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
Turing_Machine 9y ago
"That is the difference between religion and science. It is the very fundamental base of science to be able to be falsifiably wrong." Correct. Keep that in mind the next time you hear someone say "the science is settled".
danjoc 9y ago
>What I do wonder is what it would take for climate change deniers to admit being wrong? Mann is the fundamental reason "deniers" exist. He produced a model that produced hockey stick graphs with random data. Instead of distancing themselves from Mann, the community (IPCC) fanatically attacked anyone who pointed out the emperor had no clothes. The term "denier" popped out of that politicized controversy. You're still fighting the lost cause by using it. Mann is admitting he was wrong. You're unable to do the same. He should have just said "Oops" in 2003. He had a bug in his program. While it would have been a bit of egg on his face (and the IPCC for publishing), we all understand bugs in code. Instead, he clung to it, hoping observations would match his predictions anyway. This gave his political enemies all the ammunition needed to properly smear the entire scientific community who backed him. We fixed CFCs. We fixed acid rain. Mann, and the IPCC's refusal to disavow him, is the reason there is even a debate anymore. Dogma is the enemy, not the skeptics. Skeptics are a healthy part of the scientific process.

baq 9y ago

Is that news? This isn't Fox, it's Nature.

Brede 9y ago

There are a number of misconceptions regarding 'hide the decline': 1) The "decline" does not refer to a "decline in global temperature" as often claimed. It actually refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitude locations. This decline began in the 1960s when tree-ring proxies diverged from the temperature record. 2) "Mike's Nature trick" has nothing to do with "hide the decline". "Mike's trick" refers to a technique by Michael Mann to plot instrumental temperature data on the same graph as reconstructed data over the past millennium. 3) The divergence of tree-ring proxies from temperatures after 1960 is openly discussed in the peer-reviewed literature and the last two IPCC assessment reports.