3 ms·

Looks like this part is political: “for the physical modelling of Earth’s climate, quantifying variability and reliably predicting global warming”" And this p

by Throwaway197401 5y ago

Looks like this part is political: “for the physical modelling of Earth’s climate, quantifying variability and reliably predicting global warming”" And this part is actual science: “for the discovery of the interplay of disorder and fluctuations in physical systems from atomic to planetary scales”

baq 5y ago
nope. before you ask me for sources, you haven't provided any, and you're quoting from a release with sources.
- Throwaway197401 5y ago
  The source is the reason given. Modelling is NOT physics, it's not even science its statistics and does not actually produce the result that are claimed. There is a reason why the IPCC comes out with a range and not a specific number. They haven't found the right initial conditions or they would only use his to move forward. In fact if that had really been the case he should have been the only person who got the prize as that would have been an amazing achievement. This is just "sciencewashing" speculative modelling based on models about the climate that can't be proven to be correct in the future. (Hence the reason they are not going to stop modelling different initial conditions. So yes it's political nothing else. Politics not software is eating the world.
eganist 5y ago
> Looks like this part is political: “for the physical modelling of Earth’s climate, quantifying variability and reliably predicting global warming” All this is saying is that the predictive models they devised were proven correct given climate behavior today, e.g rise of temperatures and a general uptrend in severe weather activity that followed.
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  He predicted 0.57C of warming by the year 2000, and we saw 0.54C of warming. So accurate at least according to that. https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1445359093905084417 https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1445359093905084417
- Throwaway197401 5y ago
  Which shouldn't be given a nobel price unless they can explain exactly why which they can't just like we can't really explain why the temperature didn't increase for a period after 2nd world war without getting into speculation. It's bogus and as far some anything related to scientific standards as we can come.

baq 5y ago

nope. before you ask me for sources, you haven't provided any, and you're quoting from a release with sources.

Throwaway197401 5y ago
The source is the reason given. Modelling is NOT physics, it's not even science its statistics and does not actually produce the result that are claimed. There is a reason why the IPCC comes out with a range and not a specific number. They haven't found the right initial conditions or they would only use his to move forward. In fact if that had really been the case he should have been the only person who got the prize as that would have been an amazing achievement. This is just "sciencewashing" speculative modelling based on models about the climate that can't be proven to be correct in the future. (Hence the reason they are not going to stop modelling different initial conditions. So yes it's political nothing else. Politics not software is eating the world.

eganist 5y ago

> Looks like this part is political: “for the physical modelling of Earth’s climate, quantifying variability and reliably predicting global warming” All this is saying is that the predictive models they devised were proven correct given climate behavior today, e.g rise of temperatures and a general uptrend in severe weather activity that followed.

fighterpilot 5y ago
He predicted 0.57C of warming by the year 2000, and we saw 0.54C of warming. So accurate at least according to that. https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1445359093905084417 https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1445359093905084417
Throwaway197401 5y ago
Which shouldn't be given a nobel price unless they can explain exactly why which they can't just like we can't really explain why the temperature didn't increase for a period after 2nd world war without getting into speculation. It's bogus and as far some anything related to scientific standards as we can come.