4 ms·

As I recall, the Titanic makes no appearance in any of the papers linked in the article. Did you follow any of the links? You can literally "^F paper" and fin

As I recall, the Titanic makes no appearance in any of the papers linked in the article. Did you follow any of the links? You can literally "^F paper" and find those links.

the-dude 6y ago
So where did this Titanic story come from? Look, papers are just an opinion, man. Climate 'science' is not science at all : science makes verifiable claims. No such thing with the climate. I am from NL : we have a thing with sealevel for centuries. Did you ever look at the sealevel rise at NL? There is no, I repeat : no change in sealevel rise in the last centuries. The level is steady-as-you-go going up since the ice age.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  Oh, you mean verifiable predictions like these? https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/even-50-year-old-cli... Had you actually read the article, you would see the Titanic story was referencing a talk one of the scientists gave. You seem to be doing everything you can to avoid reading anything. Are you even interested in this, or just trolling?
  - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
    The fact that 10 models were correct doesn't say much unless we also know how many models were wrong. It's easy to cherrypick the best ones in retrospect. If there are enough models, even if all of them are bullshit, some will be correct, the same way a broken clock shows the correct time twice a day.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      How many climate models do you think there are? What evidence do you have that there's been any cherry picking? You have read the study, haven't you?
      - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
        If it weren’t paywalled I could’ve done that. It seems that either you expected me to pay, or you didn’t realize this, which would put some irony in your almost obsessively and smugly bugging people about reading your links, when you didn’t even put in the effort yourself. > How many climate models do you think there are? I don’t know, probably more than the 14 they analyzed? What matters more than count anyway is whether the high-impact policy-shaping papers were accurate. > What evidence do you have that there's been any cherry picking? What evidence do you have that there’s not? If you trust the authors, that’s fine. I just personally happen to think trust isn’t enough.
        pmiller2 6y ago
        No, I expect you to read the paper before you accuse the researchers of bad faith. Here, allow me to spoon feed you the results of a 1 second google search for the paper's title and authors: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337753937_Evaluating_the_Performance_of_Past_Climate_Model_Projections/link/5e56bee14585152ce8f2688c/download https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337753937_Evaluatin... Now: what evidence do you have of cherry picking on the part of the authors? You raised the issue, you questioned the integrity of the researchers, so it's your burden to show that there was cherry picking. Actually, here, let me spoon feed you even more. Here are the first 2 paragraphs of the methods section: > We conducted a literature search to identify papers published prior to the early‐1990s that include climate model outputs containing both a time series of projected future GMST (with a minimum of two points in time) and future forcings (including both a publication date and future projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations, at a minimum). Eleven papers with 14 distinct projections were identified that fit these criteria. Starting in the mid‐1990s, climate modeling efforts were primarily undertaken in conjunction with the IPCC process (and later, the Coupled Model Intercomparison Projects, CMIPs), and model projections were taken from models featured in the IPCC FAR (1990), Second Assessment Report (SAR‐IPCC, 1996), Third Assessment Report (TAR‐IPCC, 2001), and Fourth Assessment Report (AR4‐IPCC, 2007). > The specific models projections evaluated were Manabe, 1970 (hereafter Ma70), Mitchell, 1970 (Mi70), Benson, 1970 (B70), Rasool & Schneider, 1971 (RS71), Sawyer, 1972 (S72), Broecker, 1975 (B75), Nordhaus, 1977 (N77), Schneider & Thompson, 1981 (ST81), Hansen et al., 1981 (H81), Hansen et al., 1988 (H88), and Manabe & Stouffer, 1993 (MS93). The energy balance model projections featured in the main text of the FAR, SAR, and TAR were examined, while the CMIP3 multimodel mean (and spread) was examined for the AR4 (multimodel means were not used as the primary IPCC projections featured in the main text prior to the AR4). Details about how each individual model projection was digitized and analyzed as well as assessments of individual models included in the first three IPCC reports can be found in the supporting information Do you still want to accuse these researchers of bad faith?
- ArnoVW 6y ago
  The KNMI does not seem to agree with your position. The sea level has risen 20 cm between 1901 et 2010. Another 26-89 in the next century. https://www.knmi.nl/kennis-en-datacentrum/uitleg/zeespiegelstijging https://www.knmi.nl/kennis-en-datacentrum/uitleg/zeespiegels... There's dedicated Wikipedia page on the subject BTW: https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeespiegelstijging https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeespiegelstijging

As I recall, the Titanic makes no appearance in any of the papers linked in the article. Did you follow any of the links? You can literally "^F paper" and find those links.

the-dude 6y ago

So where did this Titanic story come from? Look, papers are just an opinion, man. Climate 'science' is not science at all : science makes verifiable claims. No such thing with the climate. I am from NL : we have a thing with sealevel for centuries. Did you ever look at the sealevel rise at NL? There is no, I repeat : no change in sealevel rise in the last centuries. The level is steady-as-you-go going up since the ice age.

pmiller2 6y ago
Oh, you mean verifiable predictions like these? https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/even-50-year-old-cli... Had you actually read the article, you would see the Titanic story was referencing a talk one of the scientists gave. You seem to be doing everything you can to avoid reading anything. Are you even interested in this, or just trolling?
- read_if_gay_ 6y ago
  The fact that 10 models were correct doesn't say much unless we also know how many models were wrong. It's easy to cherrypick the best ones in retrospect. If there are enough models, even if all of them are bullshit, some will be correct, the same way a broken clock shows the correct time twice a day.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    How many climate models do you think there are? What evidence do you have that there's been any cherry picking? You have read the study, haven't you?
    - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
      If it weren’t paywalled I could’ve done that. It seems that either you expected me to pay, or you didn’t realize this, which would put some irony in your almost obsessively and smugly bugging people about reading your links, when you didn’t even put in the effort yourself. > How many climate models do you think there are? I don’t know, probably more than the 14 they analyzed? What matters more than count anyway is whether the high-impact policy-shaping papers were accurate. > What evidence do you have that there's been any cherry picking? What evidence do you have that there’s not? If you trust the authors, that’s fine. I just personally happen to think trust isn’t enough.
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        No, I expect you to read the paper before you accuse the researchers of bad faith. Here, allow me to spoon feed you the results of a 1 second google search for the paper's title and authors: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337753937_Evaluating_the_Performance_of_Past_Climate_Model_Projections/link/5e56bee14585152ce8f2688c/download https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337753937_Evaluatin... Now: what evidence do you have of cherry picking on the part of the authors? You raised the issue, you questioned the integrity of the researchers, so it's your burden to show that there was cherry picking. Actually, here, let me spoon feed you even more. Here are the first 2 paragraphs of the methods section: > We conducted a literature search to identify papers published prior to the early‐1990s that include climate model outputs containing both a time series of projected future GMST (with a minimum of two points in time) and future forcings (including both a publication date and future projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations, at a minimum). Eleven papers with 14 distinct projections were identified that fit these criteria. Starting in the mid‐1990s, climate modeling efforts were primarily undertaken in conjunction with the IPCC process (and later, the Coupled Model Intercomparison Projects, CMIPs), and model projections were taken from models featured in the IPCC FAR (1990), Second Assessment Report (SAR‐IPCC, 1996), Third Assessment Report (TAR‐IPCC, 2001), and Fourth Assessment Report (AR4‐IPCC, 2007). > The specific models projections evaluated were Manabe, 1970 (hereafter Ma70), Mitchell, 1970 (Mi70), Benson, 1970 (B70), Rasool & Schneider, 1971 (RS71), Sawyer, 1972 (S72), Broecker, 1975 (B75), Nordhaus, 1977 (N77), Schneider & Thompson, 1981 (ST81), Hansen et al., 1981 (H81), Hansen et al., 1988 (H88), and Manabe & Stouffer, 1993 (MS93). The energy balance model projections featured in the main text of the FAR, SAR, and TAR were examined, while the CMIP3 multimodel mean (and spread) was examined for the AR4 (multimodel means were not used as the primary IPCC projections featured in the main text prior to the AR4). Details about how each individual model projection was digitized and analyzed as well as assessments of individual models included in the first three IPCC reports can be found in the supporting information Do you still want to accuse these researchers of bad faith?
ArnoVW 6y ago
The KNMI does not seem to agree with your position. The sea level has risen 20 cm between 1901 et 2010. Another 26-89 in the next century. https://www.knmi.nl/kennis-en-datacentrum/uitleg/zeespiegelstijging https://www.knmi.nl/kennis-en-datacentrum/uitleg/zeespiegels... There's dedicated Wikipedia page on the subject BTW: https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeespiegelstijging https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeespiegelstijging