5 ms·
Oh absolutely. Environmental scientists are very conservative and anti-alarmist with their predictions, and every successive generation of derived data skews to
by post-it 3y ago
Oh absolutely. Environmental scientists are very conservative and anti-alarmist with their predictions, and every successive generation of derived data skews towards the more conservative end.
- Brusco_RF 3y agoSatire?
- empyrrhicist 3y agoNo, this has been pretty well documented and reported. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-science-predictions-prove-too-conservative/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-science-p...
- digdugdirk 3y agoNo, actually the truth. The climate change "hype" comes from journalists and editors. The actual research papers are generally very conservative in their estimations, and we've been exceeding the predicted outcomes for decades without making any real changes to improve our situation.
- taylodl 3y agoSadly, this fact isn't all that well-known.
- boondoggle16 3y ago[flagged]
- ceejayoz 3y agoWhat specific problems have historically been made better by "hanging all the journalists"?
- boondoggle16 3y agoI'll leave that as an exercise to the reader. Imagine how our society would change if these liars and grifters were not constantly brainwashing our friends and family on the topics of: - Economics - Climate - Health - Social wellbeing
- ajmurmann 3y agoGiven the conservative estimates by scientists have been exceeded, how far of where the more exaggerated takes by journalists?
- digdugdirk 3y agoEven today we have no way of really answering that question. Climate science is generally aiming for a timeline around 2050-2100. As an analogy - Imagine I told you that if you ate an extra 3000 calories of junk food every day you'd gain a lot of weight. You disagree, for whatever reason, and we carry out the experiment. If a journalist wrote an article on our experiment, and their editor titled it "Ajmurmann about to be 100kg heavier!", when would we be able to tell if they are correct or not? You might be able to make it a week while still being within normal weight fluctuations, but two weeks? Three weeks? A year? And when would we be able to determine the "correctness" of the 100kg number? Comparing that situation to the Earth's climate - We're still in the first month of the experiment, and shoveling junk food into our metaphorical mouths as fast we can.
- SirMaster 3y agoYou are saying there are no scientists that predicted we would have more sea level rise than we actually do by now?
- lamontcg 3y agoIf you're asking if you can disprove the previous statement by finding a single example of a scientist who predicted wild rises in sea level that haven't happened, the answer is 'no'. Most scientists can still have historically been overly conservative even if you can find a few that made over the top predictions. It should be perfectly obvious that the presence of a few outliers doesn't invalidate the median of the sample.
- jeffbee 3y agoThe IPCC 1990 report predicted that sea level rise would abruptly accelerate from recent historic averages of 1-2mm/yr to 2-7mm/yr, and that is what happened. Satellite altimetry has tracked the central estimate of the 1990 IPCC predictions quite closely.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- SirMaster 3y agoI'm not trying to disprove anything. I am trying to understand if there is some chance that this estimate could perhaps be an outlier. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#/media/File:PeerReviewedPapersComparingGlobalWarmingAndCoolingIn1970s.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#/media/File:Pee... How can I know whether this prediction will end up being one of the blue line or one of the red line.