4 ms·
Global Warming Trend 'Only 1/2 of the Climate Model Simulations' Says New Paper
- FridayoLeary 4y ago>"The total TTT trend found in this study was only one-half of the climate model simulations," the STAR researchers note. "Possible reasons for the observation-model differences in trends may include climate model biases in responding to external forcings, deficiencies in the post- millennium external forcings used in model simulations, phase mismatch in natural internal climate variability, and possible residual errors in satellite dat sets." Translation: The models simply run too hot, the historical inputs like volcanic aerosols and ozone to the models may be wrong, a temporary natural cooling trend could be masking warming, and adjustments t the satellite data may be wrong.
- yujian 4y agoI can't believe we're still "debating" climate change/"global warming" in 2023
- karmakurtisaani 4y agoWell, there are powerful interest groups who would love us to think of it as a non-issue. What we see here might be the next line of defence, going from "CC is not real" to "Ok, it's real, but not as bad as we're being told".
- ZeroGravitas 4y agoThis is literally what's happening, here's the same author in 2006(!) talking about how he was funded by Exxon, and wrongly denied climate change was happening, but those two things are totally unrelated. After all, why would Exxon still keep giving money to someone who admitted climate change was happening? (answer, because after initially denying it completely, they've spent the last two decades downplaying it and attacking a bunch of other threats to fossil fuel sales) https://reason.com/2006/09/22/confessions-of-an-alleged-exxo/ https://reason.com/2006/09/22/confessions-of-an-alleged-exxo...
- ZeroGravitas 4y agoClimate change denial has never been a good look, but we're well past plausible deniability now.
- Bostonian 4y agoMost of the article documents that the earth is warming but at a slower pace than it says models predict. That's not "climate change denial".
- karmakurtisaani 4y agoJudging from the other comments here, seems like the article is agenda-driven. That's essentially as good as denial.
- robocat 4y agoDismissing people just because they have an agenda is a poor practice. You can easily have an agenda and be correct. And surely listening to people that have no clear agenda can be dangerous too.
- karmakurtisaani 4y agoEh, I've seen enough agenda-driven material when it comes to climate change. What's next, smoking is not as bad as previously thought? Where's the value in that?
- robocat 4y agoMy point is that fighting to prevent climate change is also an agenda.
- numbers_guy 4y agoreason.com
- max_hoffmann 4y agoThe author is not a scientist, wrote a book called »Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death« and he cites only one single paper. Totally untrustworthy
- rllearneratwork 4y agohow do you decide who is a scientist and who is not?
- chasely 4y agoThey publish peer-reviewed articles in decent-quality publications. How you judge the latter is tougher and very domain specific, but each field usually has 1-2 "target" journals where the best work goes, and another 2-3 "second choice" journals that aren't as prestigious but still have good works. Usually the research topics going to the second choice journals just aren't as sexy as the work that gets into the target journals.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- munificent 4y agoThis is a pretty neat example of how to mislead using distracting piles of real data and technical jargon. It immediately dives into lots of studies and graphs which are all valid. But if you strip that away and look at the core argument, it is: 1. Climate researchers project temperature will increase by X%. 2. Historical data shows an increase smaller than X%. 3. Therefore the projections are wrong. Once you reduce it down to that, the key flaw in the argument is more obvious: 3 only follows from 2 if you assume that the rate of temperature increase is unchanging. But the article itself even includes a quote that "tropospheric warming is accelerating". The whole point of fears about climate change is that the change is accelerating. Or, by analogy: I project that my height in ten years will not have increased at all. However, looking at the historical data, I clearly grow about 2.25 inches per year. Therefore, Bailey would claim that my projection is bullshit. Well, actually, no. My projection is correct. My rate of growth changed (in this case a rapid deceleration) around the age of 18.
- ddgflorida 4y ago[flagged]