5 ms·

I haven't missed any points, I've simply written what he is arguing. He is arguing that New York will not, in fact, be gone in 30 years, because it will have ad

I haven't missed any points, I've simply written what he is arguing. He is arguing that New York will not, in fact, be gone in 30 years, because it will have adapted just like Miami and Amsterdam. So too will other places. Regardless, the premises of both your and his argument are weak. The idea that Miami will be six meters underwater in 30 years is not based on actual observations about sea level rises (which are utterly tiny and very stable), but are based on computational models that are programmed to assume massive and very fast feedback loops that end with the poles melting all at once. We all learned a lot about how much academia cares about model reliability during COVID (they don't care, at all). Although the HSBC exec doesn't directly challenge climate models (only central bank risk models and the priorities assigned to them), models of all kinds have long histories of being wrong. Climatologists tend to respond to this by actually editing the historical record to make it appear as if they were correct retroactively, which is completely unscientific. This sort of behavior might be why the markets don't seem to acknowledge climate risk existing, which is a part of the guy's point.

yread 4y ago
Can you point to the "Climatologists tend to respond to this by actually editing the historical record" ? Do you mean this is not factual: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-mo... EDIT: this paper and twitter thread is even better https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1202271427807678464 https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1202271427807678464
- native_samples 4y ago
  Climatologists like to claim their models are or were accurate, but such claims have no real meaning because they change the temperature databases to make them right retroactively. It's hard to believe I know, I struggled to accept this at first, but they do it and they do it aggressively. It seems to have started around the year 2000 but the practice might date to earlier. To wit: what they label as "observations" are not actually thermometer readings as they may at first appear, but rather data points after a complicated adjustment process. The averaging process then adds many more sources of modeled adjustment, so they keep changing the methodologies of both the individual weather station readings and also the composite averages post-hoc. About half of all warming visible in the (current) temperature record for the 20th century actually derives from administrative adjustments made after 2008. You therefore cannot actually say how hot a particular year was, as far as climatologists are concerned. The past is not fixed. To make a claim about how hot it was in city X on date Y you must also reference dataset version Z. This has a lot of strange effects. For example we often read about record setting temperatures. These records can be "unbroken" [1]: "NOAA noted in a Friday press release that the previous record was set in July 2016, and tied in 2019 and 2020. But as Bill Frezza, a sharp-eyed reader of Retraction Watch noticed, the agency’s website tells a different story. This press release, dated Aug. 15, 2019, and still live on noaa.gov, proclaims July 2019 to be the hottest month on record for the planet." Temperature datasets are like software (actually they are software). Some do occasional releases that make big changes. Others are actually continuously 'deployed'. As they explain: "NOAAGlobalTempv5 is a reconstructed dataset, meaning that the entire period of record is recalculated each month with new data. Based on those new calculations, the new historical data can bring about updates to previously reported values." For many years climatologists debated the nature and causes of the "pause" in global warming that started around the turn of the millennium. Many papers were published on this e.g. by the UK Met Office [2], many newspaper articles were written [3] etc. Temperatures had stopped going up and nobody knew why. No problem. The pause and all the many barrels of ink spilled on it, was simply written out of history. It was all just a big data mistake, they concluded.[4] Actually the pause never happened at all, and they proceeded to edit it out of the temperature databases. They started removing the pause around 2015. By their own telling they can't even accurately measure trends in temperatures in past 20 years, but, for sure, they know what will happen in 80 years. It's not rational to treat a community that behaves in such a way as if they cannot make mistakes. They have repeatedly done so in the past, by their own admission! [1] https://retractionwatch.com/2021/08/16/will-the-real-hottest-month-on-record-please-stand-up/ https://retractionwatch.com/2021/08/16/will-the-real-hottest... [2] https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/metofficegovuk/pdf/research/climate-science/climate-observations-projections-and-impacts/paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.pdf https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/metoffi... [3] https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24173504 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24173504 [4] https://nature.com/articles/nature.2015.17700 https://nature.com/articles/nature.2015.17700
  - yread 4y ago
    Oh, that's what you meant. I don't really see the problem with that, [1] explains that the biggest bias that needs to be corrected is change of time of measurement. The actual measurements are just one of the inputs of a model (that can also produce temperature estimates for the places where the measurements took place at e.g. 12:00). I thought someone was rewriting the observations! [1] https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroug...
    - native_samples 4y ago
      TOB is one of many justifications for making changes, and only applies in the first decades of the 20th century, yet they also have been adjusting temperatures recorded last year. And yes, they are rewriting the observations. The raw data sometimes isn't even available to the public, so the adjusted temperatures are what we get. It's those adjusted temperatures that get input into the models (that predict the future). Regardless, there is a serious problem here. It doesn't actually matter if you agree with the rationales for editing the data or not - even if you are 100% on side climatology, the fact remains that they have radically changed their opinions about how the climate was changing in the past, and have done so multiple times (the long period of cooling that triggered the global cooling claims in the 60s and 70s is now no longer visible in the historical data either). The existence of these changes are simply documented facts. By implication, despite studying climate for many decades they still don't have the ability to accurately measure current temperatures. Again this is not really controversial or up for debate, it's their own telling of the situation. To predict the future you have to be able to at least accurately measure the present.

yread 4y ago

Can you point to the "Climatologists tend to respond to this by actually editing the historical record" ? Do you mean this is not factual: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-mo... EDIT: this paper and twitter thread is even better https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1202271427807678464 https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1202271427807678464

native_samples 4y ago
Climatologists like to claim their models are or were accurate, but such claims have no real meaning because they change the temperature databases to make them right retroactively. It's hard to believe I know, I struggled to accept this at first, but they do it and they do it aggressively. It seems to have started around the year 2000 but the practice might date to earlier. To wit: what they label as "observations" are not actually thermometer readings as they may at first appear, but rather data points after a complicated adjustment process. The averaging process then adds many more sources of modeled adjustment, so they keep changing the methodologies of both the individual weather station readings and also the composite averages post-hoc. About half of all warming visible in the (current) temperature record for the 20th century actually derives from administrative adjustments made after 2008. You therefore cannot actually say how hot a particular year was, as far as climatologists are concerned. The past is not fixed. To make a claim about how hot it was in city X on date Y you must also reference dataset version Z. This has a lot of strange effects. For example we often read about record setting temperatures. These records can be "unbroken" [1]: "NOAA noted in a Friday press release that the previous record was set in July 2016, and tied in 2019 and 2020. But as Bill Frezza, a sharp-eyed reader of Retraction Watch noticed, the agency’s website tells a different story. This press release, dated Aug. 15, 2019, and still live on noaa.gov, proclaims July 2019 to be the hottest month on record for the planet." Temperature datasets are like software (actually they are software). Some do occasional releases that make big changes. Others are actually continuously 'deployed'. As they explain: "NOAAGlobalTempv5 is a reconstructed dataset, meaning that the entire period of record is recalculated each month with new data. Based on those new calculations, the new historical data can bring about updates to previously reported values." For many years climatologists debated the nature and causes of the "pause" in global warming that started around the turn of the millennium. Many papers were published on this e.g. by the UK Met Office [2], many newspaper articles were written [3] etc. Temperatures had stopped going up and nobody knew why. No problem. The pause and all the many barrels of ink spilled on it, was simply written out of history. It was all just a big data mistake, they concluded.[4] Actually the pause never happened at all, and they proceeded to edit it out of the temperature databases. They started removing the pause around 2015. By their own telling they can't even accurately measure trends in temperatures in past 20 years, but, for sure, they know what will happen in 80 years. It's not rational to treat a community that behaves in such a way as if they cannot make mistakes. They have repeatedly done so in the past, by their own admission! [1] https://retractionwatch.com/2021/08/16/will-the-real-hottest-month-on-record-please-stand-up/ https://retractionwatch.com/2021/08/16/will-the-real-hottest... [2] https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/metofficegovuk/pdf/research/climate-science/climate-observations-projections-and-impacts/paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.pdf https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/metoffi... [3] https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24173504 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24173504 [4] https://nature.com/articles/nature.2015.17700 https://nature.com/articles/nature.2015.17700
- yread 4y ago
  Oh, that's what you meant. I don't really see the problem with that, [1] explains that the biggest bias that needs to be corrected is change of time of measurement. The actual measurements are just one of the inputs of a model (that can also produce temperature estimates for the places where the measurements took place at e.g. 12:00). I thought someone was rewriting the observations! [1] https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroug...
  - native_samples 4y ago
    TOB is one of many justifications for making changes, and only applies in the first decades of the 20th century, yet they also have been adjusting temperatures recorded last year. And yes, they are rewriting the observations. The raw data sometimes isn't even available to the public, so the adjusted temperatures are what we get. It's those adjusted temperatures that get input into the models (that predict the future). Regardless, there is a serious problem here. It doesn't actually matter if you agree with the rationales for editing the data or not - even if you are 100% on side climatology, the fact remains that they have radically changed their opinions about how the climate was changing in the past, and have done so multiple times (the long period of cooling that triggered the global cooling claims in the 60s and 70s is now no longer visible in the historical data either). The existence of these changes are simply documented facts. By implication, despite studying climate for many decades they still don't have the ability to accurately measure current temperatures. Again this is not really controversial or up for debate, it's their own telling of the situation. To predict the future you have to be able to at least accurately measure the present.