4 ms·

[flagged]

by _oskh 3y ago

[flagged]

hh3k0 3y ago
There is no bet for you to take, but I hope you’ll find the time to think back to your foolishness once when we have resource wars and widespread famines due to simultaneous global breadbasket failure.
- _oskh 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - worik 3y ago
    They are observations
    - User23 3y ago
      They are observations plus modelled corrections. Here's a simple thought experiment. How would you accurately measure the average temperature in a kitchen? Residential? How about commercial? How many sensors would you need? Where would you locate them? How about in a gymnasium when it's empty? Or during a basketball game with packed stands? How about the State of California? The USA? The world? Climate scientists have to think about all of these things, and sadly there isn't one right answer. So they end up making assumptions that are based on their models. That's right, the model drives the measurement! Supposedly those techniques are robust, but naively it feels like there's definitely room for some pretty significant mistakes to be made.
    - pdonis 3y ago
      No, they aren't. The actual observations are that the climate is warming more slowly than the models predict--to the point where the actual warming is outside the low end of the 95% confidence interval of the model predictions. Science has a term for models like that: "falsified".
      - hotpotamus 3y ago
        Exxon's models have proved fairly accurate https://m.xkcd.com/2500/ https://m.xkcd.com/2500/
        pdonis 3y ago
        Depends on which dataset you compare them to. The NOAA dataset in the xkcd shows about 0.6 C warming over Munroe's lifetime--but satellite datasets, for example this one [1], show only about half that. Also, the Exxon predictions are significantly less severe than the ones the alarmists are using. So if the Exxon predictions are taken as reasonably accurate, they are a reason to be less alarmist, not more. (And if the Exxon predictions are acknowledged to be overpredicting, then we have even less reason to be alarmist.) [1] https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-climate-reality/ https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-cli...
- burningChrome 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - hh3k0 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - burningChrome 3y ago
      [flagged]
- holbrad 3y ago
  Interestingly rising global CO2 levels significantly boost crop production. Wonder how that will offset potentially more extreme weather.
  - hh3k0 3y ago
    All other things aside, it will also make food less nutritious: > Research led by Sam Myers, Director of the Planetary Health Alliance at the Harvard Chan School, found that when food crops like wheat, corn, rice and soy are exposed to CO2 at levels predicted for 2050, the plants lose as much as 10% of their zinc, 5% of their iron, and 8% of their protein content. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/c-change/subtopics/climate-change-nutrition/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/c-change/subtopics/climate-chan...

[flagged]

by _oskh 3y ago

[flagged]

There is no bet for you to take, but I hope you’ll find the time to think back to your foolishness once when we have resource wars and widespread famines due to simultaneous global breadbasket failure.

_oskh 3y ago
[flagged]
- worik 3y ago
  They are observations
  - User23 3y ago
    They are observations plus modelled corrections. Here's a simple thought experiment. How would you accurately measure the average temperature in a kitchen? Residential? How about commercial? How many sensors would you need? Where would you locate them? How about in a gymnasium when it's empty? Or during a basketball game with packed stands? How about the State of California? The USA? The world? Climate scientists have to think about all of these things, and sadly there isn't one right answer. So they end up making assumptions that are based on their models. That's right, the model drives the measurement! Supposedly those techniques are robust, but naively it feels like there's definitely room for some pretty significant mistakes to be made.
  - pdonis 3y ago
    No, they aren't. The actual observations are that the climate is warming more slowly than the models predict--to the point where the actual warming is outside the low end of the 95% confidence interval of the model predictions. Science has a term for models like that: "falsified".
    - hotpotamus 3y ago
      Exxon's models have proved fairly accurate https://m.xkcd.com/2500/ https://m.xkcd.com/2500/
      - pdonis 3y ago
        Depends on which dataset you compare them to. The NOAA dataset in the xkcd shows about 0.6 C warming over Munroe's lifetime--but satellite datasets, for example this one [1], show only about half that. Also, the Exxon predictions are significantly less severe than the ones the alarmists are using. So if the Exxon predictions are taken as reasonably accurate, they are a reason to be less alarmist, not more. (And if the Exxon predictions are acknowledged to be overpredicting, then we have even less reason to be alarmist.) [1] https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-climate-reality/ https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-cli...
burningChrome 3y ago
[flagged]
- hh3k0 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - burningChrome 3y ago
    [flagged]
holbrad 3y ago
Interestingly rising global CO2 levels significantly boost crop production. Wonder how that will offset potentially more extreme weather.
- hh3k0 3y ago
  All other things aside, it will also make food less nutritious: > Research led by Sam Myers, Director of the Planetary Health Alliance at the Harvard Chan School, found that when food crops like wheat, corn, rice and soy are exposed to CO2 at levels predicted for 2050, the plants lose as much as 10% of their zinc, 5% of their iron, and 8% of their protein content. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/c-change/subtopics/climate-change-nutrition/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/c-change/subtopics/climate-chan...