14 ms·

For those (like me) who don't know the authors, apparently they are well-published authors in the field of climate science whose work is very highly cited: htt

by eykanal 7mo ago

For those (like me) who don't know the authors, apparently they are well-published authors in the field of climate science whose work is very highly cited: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C39&q=grant+foster+climate&btnG= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C39&q=gra... Not a perfect measure of whether this is a reputable article but at least readers should know this isn't from some randos in a basement somewhere.

miroljub 7mo ago
[flagged]
- Sharlin 7mo ago
  No, it really does not work like that, for reasons that should be obvious.
- ceejayoz 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
- unethical_ban 7mo ago
  Yes, credibility is one component of evaluating conclusions from evidence.
  - NotGMan 7mo ago
    [flagged]
    - teamonkey 7mo ago
      Their credibility and experience makes it more likely that they will have followed scientific procedures correctly, that their measuring techniques will not have obvious flaws and their findings reflect the evidence. This is not an appeal to authority: the paper will be examined thoroughly by peer reviewers and likely by academics across the world, in part because of their credibility. That will take time. Meanwhile it should be taken seriously.
tarr11 7mo ago
It says this in bold red at the top - "This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal." I am not a climate scientist - how should I think about this statement? Normally I am looking for some statement that shows a document has been vetted.
- sleet_spotter 7mo ago
  Peer review is still very relevant in climate science. But given it is from well-respected authors, I am more inclined to trust the results at this stage.
  - Nevermark 7mo ago
    There is no need for "trust". There is no benefit in non-expert readers inserting their own subjectivity into an already complex topic. Even for themselves. What we know: It is an interesting paper. It is going to get attention. Good to be aware. It is also good to reserve judgement while the community evaluates the results.
- juujian 7mo ago
  It is already published at Geophysical Research Letters, a highly (if not the most) reputable source in the area. But that journal is behind a paywall: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2025GL118804 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/202...
  - FabHK 7mo ago
    Oh, that contains an ELI5: > Plain Language Summary The rise in global temperature has been widely considered to be quite steady for several decades since the 1970s. Recently, however, scientists have started to debate whether global warming has accelerated since then. It is difficult to be sure of that because of natural fluctuations in the warming rate, and so far no statistical significance (meaning 95% certainty) of an acceleration (increase in warming rate) has been demonstrated. In this study we subtract the estimated influence of El Niño events, volcanic eruptions and solar variations from the data, which makes the global temperature curve less variable, and it then shows a statistically significant acceleration of global warming since about the year 2015. Warming proceeding faster is not unexpected by climate models, but it is a cause of concern and shows how insufficient the efforts to slow and eventually stop global warming under the Paris Climate Accord have so far been.
notarobot123 7mo ago
Ironically, those still unconvinced of the human influence on climate change seem to be the sort that would trust the basement randos more than they would reputable scientists
- rootusrootus 7mo ago
  It's a culture thing, nobody on the right would ever be convinced by science, they will shop around until they find what they need to hear. My sister in law sent me a video and told me that she thought it was a really good explainer and had a lot of good facts and figures to support it. To humor her, I took a brief glance at it, and saw that it was produced by Dr. Shiva. I was thinking "no way, it can't be that Shiva, could it, email guy?" Yes, yes it was. We are doomed.
  - madaxe_again 7mo ago
    Tell her that you have a greenfield synergistic solution to upscale her big tent.
  - BoingBoomTschak 7mo ago
    Because "the left" would be willing to listen to scientific arguments attacking their pet issues, right? It's really not a left/right thing.
    - rootusrootus 7mo ago
      What is a left wing equivalent?
- jihadjihad 7mo ago
  Because they are practicing the reverse scientific method. They hold a conclusion in their hand, like, man-made climate change is a hoax, and seek to find any threads of "evidence" that support their foregone conclusion.
  - blell 7mo ago
timr 7mo ago
Setting aside the names of the authors, this is a very bad paper. They take temperature data sets, "adjust" [1] them by attempting to remove the biggest recent factors (volcanism, solar and el nino cycles) affecting temperatures, then do a piece-wise regression analysis to look at trends in 10-year chunks. This is just bad methodology, akin to what a junior graduate student with a failing thesis might do to find signal in a dataset that isn't being cooperative to their hypothesis. Climate data is inherently noisy, and there are multiple interconnected cyclic signals, ranging from the "adjusted" factors to cycles that span decades, which we don't understand at all. "Adjusting" for a few of these, then doing a regression over the subset of the data is classic cherry-picking in search of a pre-determined conclusion. The overall dubious nature of the conclusion is called out in the final paragraph of the text: > Although the world may not continue warming at such a fast pace, it could likewise continue accelerating to even faster rates. They're literally just extrapolating from an unknown point value that they synthesized from data massage, and telling you that's a coin toss as to whether the extrapolation will be valid. I am not a climate scientist so you can ignore me if you like, but I am "a scientist" who believes the earth is warming, and that we are the primary cause. Nonetheless, if I saw this kind of thing in a paper in my own field, it would be immediately tossed in the trash. [1] You can't actually adjust for these things, which the authors admit in the text. They just dance around it so that lay-readers won't understand: > Our method of removing El Niño, volcanism, and solar variations is approximate but not perfect, so it is possible that e.g. the effect of El Niño on the 2023 and 2024 temperature is not completely eliminated.
- refurb 7mo ago
  This has always been the big issue I have with the conclusions draw in climate publications. I encourage anyone with strong opinion on climate change to do a deep dive on the temperature analysis. The best example I can think of is the "global warming hiatus" that was discussed in depth in the top climate journals in the mid-2010s. Nature Climate Change even devoted an entire month to it.[1] 5 years later publications were saying "there was no hiatus at all".[2] And as you said, when you dive into the paper, you realize that temperature measures are not objective at all. And I would ask - If everyone was in agreement that temperature increases paused, then 5 years later everyone agrees they didn't, how much confidence do we really have in the measures themselves.* As someone who conudcted scientific research, this has a ton of inherent problems. It doesn't matter what I'm measuring, if the data collection is not objective, and there is no consensus (or at least trong evidence for adjustments), then the data itself is very unreliable. If I tried to publish a chemical paper in a top journal and manually went in and adjusted data (even with a scientific rationale) the paper would be immediately rejected. [1] https://www.nature.com/collections/sthnxgntvp https://www.nature.com/collections/sthnxgntvp [2] https://www.sciencenews.org/article/global-warming-pause-climate-change-science-early-2000s https://www.sciencenews.org/article/global-warming-pause-cli...

by eykanal 7mo ago

miroljub 7mo ago

[flagged]

Sharlin 7mo ago
No, it really does not work like that, for reasons that should be obvious.
ceejayoz 7mo ago
[flagged]
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
unethical_ban 7mo ago
Yes, credibility is one component of evaluating conclusions from evidence.
- NotGMan 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - teamonkey 7mo ago
    Their credibility and experience makes it more likely that they will have followed scientific procedures correctly, that their measuring techniques will not have obvious flaws and their findings reflect the evidence. This is not an appeal to authority: the paper will be examined thoroughly by peer reviewers and likely by academics across the world, in part because of their credibility. That will take time. Meanwhile it should be taken seriously.

tarr11 7mo ago

It says this in bold red at the top - "This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal." I am not a climate scientist - how should I think about this statement? Normally I am looking for some statement that shows a document has been vetted.

sleet_spotter 7mo ago
Peer review is still very relevant in climate science. But given it is from well-respected authors, I am more inclined to trust the results at this stage.
- Nevermark 7mo ago
  There is no need for "trust". There is no benefit in non-expert readers inserting their own subjectivity into an already complex topic. Even for themselves. What we know: It is an interesting paper. It is going to get attention. Good to be aware. It is also good to reserve judgement while the community evaluates the results.
juujian 7mo ago
It is already published at Geophysical Research Letters, a highly (if not the most) reputable source in the area. But that journal is behind a paywall: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2025GL118804 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/202...
- FabHK 7mo ago
  Oh, that contains an ELI5: > Plain Language Summary The rise in global temperature has been widely considered to be quite steady for several decades since the 1970s. Recently, however, scientists have started to debate whether global warming has accelerated since then. It is difficult to be sure of that because of natural fluctuations in the warming rate, and so far no statistical significance (meaning 95% certainty) of an acceleration (increase in warming rate) has been demonstrated. In this study we subtract the estimated influence of El Niño events, volcanic eruptions and solar variations from the data, which makes the global temperature curve less variable, and it then shows a statistically significant acceleration of global warming since about the year 2015. Warming proceeding faster is not unexpected by climate models, but it is a cause of concern and shows how insufficient the efforts to slow and eventually stop global warming under the Paris Climate Accord have so far been.

notarobot123 7mo ago

Ironically, those still unconvinced of the human influence on climate change seem to be the sort that would trust the basement randos more than they would reputable scientists

rootusrootus 7mo ago
It's a culture thing, nobody on the right would ever be convinced by science, they will shop around until they find what they need to hear. My sister in law sent me a video and told me that she thought it was a really good explainer and had a lot of good facts and figures to support it. To humor her, I took a brief glance at it, and saw that it was produced by Dr. Shiva. I was thinking "no way, it can't be that Shiva, could it, email guy?" Yes, yes it was. We are doomed.
- madaxe_again 7mo ago
  Tell her that you have a greenfield synergistic solution to upscale her big tent.
- BoingBoomTschak 7mo ago
  Because "the left" would be willing to listen to scientific arguments attacking their pet issues, right? It's really not a left/right thing.
  - rootusrootus 7mo ago
    What is a left wing equivalent?
jihadjihad 7mo ago
Because they are practicing the reverse scientific method. They hold a conclusion in their hand, like, man-made climate change is a hoax, and seek to find any threads of "evidence" that support their foregone conclusion.
- blell 7mo ago

timr 7mo ago

Setting aside the names of the authors, this is a very bad paper. They take temperature data sets, "adjust" [1] them by attempting to remove the biggest recent factors (volcanism, solar and el nino cycles) affecting temperatures, then do a piece-wise regression analysis to look at trends in 10-year chunks. This is just bad methodology, akin to what a junior graduate student with a failing thesis might do to find signal in a dataset that isn't being cooperative to their hypothesis. Climate data is inherently noisy, and there are multiple interconnected cyclic signals, ranging from the "adjusted" factors to cycles that span decades, which we don't understand at all. "Adjusting" for a few of these, then doing a regression over the subset of the data is classic cherry-picking in search of a pre-determined conclusion. The overall dubious nature of the conclusion is called out in the final paragraph of the text: > Although the world may not continue warming at such a fast pace, it could likewise continue accelerating to even faster rates. They're literally just extrapolating from an unknown point value that they synthesized from data massage, and telling you that's a coin toss as to whether the extrapolation will be valid. I am not a climate scientist so you can ignore me if you like, but I am "a scientist" who believes the earth is warming, and that we are the primary cause. Nonetheless, if I saw this kind of thing in a paper in my own field, it would be immediately tossed in the trash. [1] You can't actually adjust for these things, which the authors admit in the text. They just dance around it so that lay-readers won't understand: > Our method of removing El Niño, volcanism, and solar variations is approximate but not perfect, so it is possible that e.g. the effect of El Niño on the 2023 and 2024 temperature is not completely eliminated.

refurb 7mo ago
This has always been the big issue I have with the conclusions draw in climate publications. I encourage anyone with strong opinion on climate change to do a deep dive on the temperature analysis. The best example I can think of is the "global warming hiatus" that was discussed in depth in the top climate journals in the mid-2010s. Nature Climate Change even devoted an entire month to it.[1] 5 years later publications were saying "there was no hiatus at all".[2] And as you said, when you dive into the paper, you realize that temperature measures are not objective at all. And I would ask - If everyone was in agreement that temperature increases paused, then 5 years later everyone agrees they didn't, how much confidence do we really have in the measures themselves.* As someone who conudcted scientific research, this has a ton of inherent problems. It doesn't matter what I'm measuring, if the data collection is not objective, and there is no consensus (or at least trong evidence for adjustments), then the data itself is very unreliable. If I tried to publish a chemical paper in a top journal and manually went in and adjusted data (even with a scientific rationale) the paper would be immediately rejected. [1] https://www.nature.com/collections/sthnxgntvp https://www.nature.com/collections/sthnxgntvp [2] https://www.sciencenews.org/article/global-warming-pause-climate-change-science-early-2000s https://www.sciencenews.org/article/global-warming-pause-cli...