3 ms·

Isn't that a repetition? Predictions based on assuming a perfectly understood relationship that led to 6 degree predictions, combined with no reduction in CO2 g

Isn't that a repetition? Predictions based on assuming a perfectly understood relationship that led to 6 degree predictions, combined with no reduction in CO2 growth and yet a much less than 6 degree rise = way off base. What else would you call such a prediction? BTW I don't think many people were actually predicting 6 degrees so this is a bit academic. 6 degree rise sounds more like the IPCC's discredit "business as usual" RCP8.5 scenario. Most models predict a linear-ish trend of about 0.25C per decade, as you'd expect given their underlying premise that warming is all driven by CO2 and CO2 increases more or less linearly: https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.jpg https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-mod... https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/ https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/ Edit: actually Hansen was predicting in 1988 a 6-7 degree rise by 2050 "if we do nothing", that's clearly not going to happen given that since then it's been about 0.5 degrees and CO2 levels have continued to climb inexorably.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
≥ Predictions based on assuming a perfectly understood relationship that led to 6 degree predictions, combined with no reduction in CO2 growth and yet a much less than 6 degree rise = way off base the predictions weren't based on a "perfectly understood relationship", but yeah, they're assuming we didn't do anything, and we did stuff, in order to reduce that number, and succeeded so what's off base?
- revelio 3y ago
  > the predictions weren't based on a "perfectly understood relationship" I pull this part out because it's key to so many of the disputes and is why climatology is such an incredibly divisive field compared to others. People who call themselves scientists should not be making high confidence predictions to the public or politicians when they don't perfectly understand the underlying relationships. They also shouldn't be making unfalsifiable predictions that rely on vague claims. This is what destroys trust in science. For the rest I can only repeat what was already said. In reality nothing has been done. Look at the CO2 line and then mark on the various international summits, treaties, etc. They aren't visible. Nothing changed.
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    In a reply to me you posted proof that the rate of increase in CO2 emissions turned negative in 2015. Yet you still insist that nothing has changed.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    > People who call themselves scientists should not be making high confidence predictions to the public or politicians when they don't perfectly understand the underlying relationships that is an interesting opinion, but it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, considering nobody perfectly understands the underlying relationships of any of our science, with quantum physics still a work in progress perhaps that is why trust in science remains, despite any nihilistic claims to the contrary > Look at the CO2 line and then mark on the various international summits, treaties, etc. They aren't visible. Nothing changed. it would be farcical to suggest that an international summit would somehow immediately decrease CO2 levels, and to thus treat the absence of such a ridiculous and nongradual change as evidence that there was no change is that indeed what you're suggesting?

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago

≥ Predictions based on assuming a perfectly understood relationship that led to 6 degree predictions, combined with no reduction in CO2 growth and yet a much less than 6 degree rise = way off base the predictions weren't based on a "perfectly understood relationship", but yeah, they're assuming we didn't do anything, and we did stuff, in order to reduce that number, and succeeded so what's off base?

revelio 3y ago
> the predictions weren't based on a "perfectly understood relationship" I pull this part out because it's key to so many of the disputes and is why climatology is such an incredibly divisive field compared to others. People who call themselves scientists should not be making high confidence predictions to the public or politicians when they don't perfectly understand the underlying relationships. They also shouldn't be making unfalsifiable predictions that rely on vague claims. This is what destroys trust in science. For the rest I can only repeat what was already said. In reality nothing has been done. Look at the CO2 line and then mark on the various international summits, treaties, etc. They aren't visible. Nothing changed.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  In a reply to me you posted proof that the rate of increase in CO2 emissions turned negative in 2015. Yet you still insist that nothing has changed.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  > People who call themselves scientists should not be making high confidence predictions to the public or politicians when they don't perfectly understand the underlying relationships that is an interesting opinion, but it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, considering nobody perfectly understands the underlying relationships of any of our science, with quantum physics still a work in progress perhaps that is why trust in science remains, despite any nihilistic claims to the contrary > Look at the CO2 line and then mark on the various international summits, treaties, etc. They aren't visible. Nothing changed. it would be farcical to suggest that an international summit would somehow immediately decrease CO2 levels, and to thus treat the absence of such a ridiculous and nongradual change as evidence that there was no change is that indeed what you're suggesting?