4 ms·
Looks like early stage research. We need to keep an eye on these sorts of things, but you’re doing more damage than you are helping by promoting theories which
by Brakenshire 7y ago
Looks like early stage research. We need to keep an eye on these sorts of things, but you’re doing more damage than you are helping by promoting theories which are not well established.
- throwaway5752 7y agoI'm definitely happy to be corrected, but I am curious how you arrived at that conclusion based on the article. There is a long term upward trend in the ECS upper bound, there is model convergence towards that new upper bound figure, and it agrees with recent satellite observations from CERES. I think this constitutes a fair amount of support that warrants my concern.
- Brakenshire 7y agoMainly from the section about not being sure whether it’s a model artifact. Don’t get me wrong, if that’s what emerges as the likely sensitivity I’ll change my mind happily, I’m just tired of people repeating doomsday scenarios and basing it on speculative work.
- throwaway5752 7y agoNope, my doomsday prediction are based on almost two decades of following the issue closely and some educational background that has overlap. But I'm not a climate scientist and I recognize that. But I do think you are understating the severity of this (all models trending up and observed changes that agree with the models)
- marmaduke 7y ago> Looks like early stage research No it doesn't. The link there is not a scientific article but points to a set of models benchmarked against data for the IPCC report. Trying to check there's no artifact is just good science, no need to reproach them for that.
- Brakenshire 7y agoI'm not reproaching them, I'm pointing out their own caveats.