5 ms·

I'm not sure if he'll pop in here, but one of the co-authors (Henri Drake) has a comment thread on /r/science if anyone wants to ask any questions: https://www.

by jml7c5 7y ago

I'm not sure if he'll pop in here, but one of the co-authors (Henri Drake) has a comment thread on /r/science if anyone wants to ask any questions: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/e63ic5/of_17_climate_models_published_between_the_early/f9no11k/ https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/e63ic5/of_17_clima... EDIT: Here is some of the code used in the paper: https://github.com/hausfath/OldModels https://github.com/hausfath/OldModels Here is a blog post on the paper, written by one of the authors: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/12/how-good-have-climate-models-been-at-truly-predicting-the-future/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/12/how-go... EDIT AGAIN: The "supporting information" .docx at the bottom of this page has a lot more detail, for those (like me) who can't get past the paywall ( :-/ ): https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL085378 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019...

aidenn0 7y ago
When Henri was suggesting to use specific models for specific predictions, he added this note: > Note to reader: I was going to use Arctic sea ice in 2100 as an example, but there probably won’t be any lol
- huffmsa 7y ago
  There has been sea ice in the Arctic for well under 50% of the planets history. Life thrived The Sahara desert was a grassland 5000-10000 years Life thrived.
  - gowld 7y ago
    Most people are interested in a particular subset of life thriving.
    - huffmsa 7y ago
      You don't think we will? Perhaps not as many of us. But that's part of the problem isn't it? Too many humans, chopping down forests, over fishing, sucking melted dinosaurs out of the earth.
      - KirinDave 7y ago
        This is a genocidal argument couched as environmentalism. It's not acceptable, because you and I know full well that the world's poor and those who already live in warmer climates will be the first and most helpless victims of this outcome while those of us from richer countries will be much more capable of navigating the coming changes. If you're eager to reduce the global population, start from yourself and your family rather than writing off most of the global south. Stop consuming energy and don't have kids.
        huffmsa 7y ago
        1. Pretty sure suggesting murder suicide is against the rules. 2. The warm areas of are planet aren't recently poor. There's a very narrow habitable band of temperatures in which human society has thrived. The extreme energy needed to develop those areas is contributing more to the degradation of the environment than benefit to the species it is providing. It's not sustainable. It's going to kill us all. Not everyone can win.
        KirinDave 7y ago
        1. I'm pretty sure I was suggesting not having kids. It's a bit terrifying that you went here. 2. This doesnt change the calculus of what you're proposing at all. And it's not energy that is the missing resource; that's available in quantity. It's resources and water. Sitting here saying, "Well the people I'm proposing the death of are historically poor and therefore their hardship inevitable" isn't a rebuttal, it's a rationalization.
      - fzeroracer 7y ago
        What you're essentially defending is the right for nations contributing the most to climate change and what not to essentially put people in nations most affected by climate change to the sword if they chose to immigrate away from their ravaged nation. Instead of making an argument justifying genocide, perhaps we should instead take action against climate change before it becomes a problem? Or would you prefer the next war to be fought over water instead of oil?
  - p1necone 7y ago
    https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/
  - losteric 7y ago
    Life will undoubt survive our mistakes. The question is whether we will. Civilization is a fragile thing.
  - tunesmith 7y ago
    We're just a small planet, the universe - even our galaxy - heck, even our very solar system! - will be just fine.
  - JustSomeNobody 7y ago
    You say that, but some countries have big weapons.
  - Proven 7y ago
    > For forcing projections that were close to linear, this didn’t make that much difference, but for scenarios that weren’t (notably scenario C in Hansen et al (1988)), the correction does not work well. Notably the RCS article (quote above) emphasizes that the non-alarmist papers were sort of accurate, while the alarmist crap was off by a lot. The climatists trumpet this news as if the alarmist crap (examples from your comment) was right on the spot. No it wasn't - it was ridiculously overrated just so that statists and plunderers can get their hands on our liberty and income.
jml7c5 7y ago
A copy of the paper that's not trapped behind a paywall: https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha08910q.html https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha08910q.html

by jml7c5 7y ago

aidenn0 7y ago

When Henri was suggesting to use specific models for specific predictions, he added this note: > Note to reader: I was going to use Arctic sea ice in 2100 as an example, but there probably won’t be any lol

huffmsa 7y ago
There has been sea ice in the Arctic for well under 50% of the planets history. Life thrived The Sahara desert was a grassland 5000-10000 years Life thrived.
- gowld 7y ago
  Most people are interested in a particular subset of life thriving.
  - huffmsa 7y ago
    You don't think we will? Perhaps not as many of us. But that's part of the problem isn't it? Too many humans, chopping down forests, over fishing, sucking melted dinosaurs out of the earth.
    - KirinDave 7y ago
      This is a genocidal argument couched as environmentalism. It's not acceptable, because you and I know full well that the world's poor and those who already live in warmer climates will be the first and most helpless victims of this outcome while those of us from richer countries will be much more capable of navigating the coming changes. If you're eager to reduce the global population, start from yourself and your family rather than writing off most of the global south. Stop consuming energy and don't have kids.
      - huffmsa 7y ago
        1. Pretty sure suggesting murder suicide is against the rules. 2. The warm areas of are planet aren't recently poor. There's a very narrow habitable band of temperatures in which human society has thrived. The extreme energy needed to develop those areas is contributing more to the degradation of the environment than benefit to the species it is providing. It's not sustainable. It's going to kill us all. Not everyone can win.
        KirinDave 7y ago
        1. I'm pretty sure I was suggesting not having kids. It's a bit terrifying that you went here. 2. This doesnt change the calculus of what you're proposing at all. And it's not energy that is the missing resource; that's available in quantity. It's resources and water. Sitting here saying, "Well the people I'm proposing the death of are historically poor and therefore their hardship inevitable" isn't a rebuttal, it's a rationalization.
    - fzeroracer 7y ago
      What you're essentially defending is the right for nations contributing the most to climate change and what not to essentially put people in nations most affected by climate change to the sword if they chose to immigrate away from their ravaged nation. Instead of making an argument justifying genocide, perhaps we should instead take action against climate change before it becomes a problem? Or would you prefer the next war to be fought over water instead of oil?
- p1necone 7y ago
  https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/
- losteric 7y ago
  Life will undoubt survive our mistakes. The question is whether we will. Civilization is a fragile thing.
- tunesmith 7y ago
  We're just a small planet, the universe - even our galaxy - heck, even our very solar system! - will be just fine.
- JustSomeNobody 7y ago
  You say that, but some countries have big weapons.
- Proven 7y ago
  > For forcing projections that were close to linear, this didn’t make that much difference, but for scenarios that weren’t (notably scenario C in Hansen et al (1988)), the correction does not work well. Notably the RCS article (quote above) emphasizes that the non-alarmist papers were sort of accurate, while the alarmist crap was off by a lot. The climatists trumpet this news as if the alarmist crap (examples from your comment) was right on the spot. No it wasn't - it was ridiculously overrated just so that statists and plunderers can get their hands on our liberty and income.

jml7c5 7y ago

A copy of the paper that's not trapped behind a paywall: https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha08910q.html https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha08910q.html