3 ms·
> Part of the reason we have so many climate change deniers (IMHO) is just how bad climate model predictions have been. Sources? You seem to have read the numb
by misnome 8y ago
> Part of the reason we have so many climate change deniers (IMHO) is just how bad climate model predictions have been.
Sources? You seem to have read the number and automatically assumed it's a straight line extrapolation.
As far as I'm aware the climate models have been fine and - corrected, but not majorly disproven; it's the reporting on them that looks at the most extreme extrapolations to whip up hysteria (and so it gets ignored and so the extreme cases become more likely).
- soperj 8y ago>As far as I'm aware the climate models have been fine Sources? because they really really haven't.
- misnome 8y agoI mean the first result on google was https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-m... which seems to cover most of the major players, including the IPCC reports looking pretty consistent within uncertainties.
- soperj 8y agoDon't know where it gets these means from. For example. When I look at the IPCC's 4th assessment summary (https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4_syr_full_report.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4_syr_full...) On page 7, they have a bunch of scenarios based on various GHG emissions. From what I can tell, we're above all of them on the GHG emissions front, and under all of them on the actual temperature changes. Yet this carbon brief site says it matches exactly what has happened, so don't know what they're going off of.