4 ms·
They are observations
by worik 3y ago
They are observations
- User23 3y agoThey 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 agoNo, 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 agoExxon's models have proved fairly accurate https://m.xkcd.com/2500/ https://m.xkcd.com/2500/
- pdonis 3y agoDepends 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...