Climate Change Deniers Using Same Methods as Tobacco Industry, Says Physicist

[werepossum]

not by any reasonably projected standards in the next whatever years of human destruction--but yes, it is that simple.

There is nothing biological in today's arthropods that won't prevent them from growing to bus sizes if they are subjected to the same, persistent, high oxygen climate of the carboniferous. it's a simple ass exoskeleton and a rudimentary respiratory system--all the same, and all of which is made inefficient only by the limits of today's climate.

fucking 9 foot long centipedes? is that what you want? we will all die!

Well, yeah, but think of the bonanza for the SciFi channel. Sharktipede, Spiderpus, this shit practically writes itself.

 

[Paratus]

I am the lead author of the cited article, which is "reviewed" in that blog. This review and the misinterpretation of the results came to my knowledge approximately 24 hours ago by a stranger who just contacted the email listed in the article details. Since then I wrote a reply to the blog authors, who took the review and comments down really fast and wrote me an email with apology and further questions. However for the week in which the review has been up it is linked, cited, copy/pasted and discussed on so many websites/blogs/forums that it is probably impossible to visit and correct all. Yet, I decided to try and I have been roaming the internet for the past maybe 5 hours.

This post is the first place where I have seen someone that has actually made the efford to read the article and understand what we did and the limitations we have in our study. Thank you!

I also want to thank you for your work and for stopping by to set the record straight. :thumbsup:

 

[OverVolt]

....aaand back to how much climate modeling sucks.

 

[Jaskalas]

It's tough, cause if there is a proper model of the past then it's reasonable to say it can have predictive power.
HOWEVER, this is all done after the fact. No one on the other side said we'd pause, it weakens the argument to discover it after the fact.

What would really sell me is if they accurately predict what comes next. Between now and, say, 2020.

 

[dphantom]

I am the lead author of the cited article, which is "reviewed" in that blog. This review and the misinterpretation of the results came to my knowledge approximately 24 hours ago by a stranger who just contacted the email listed in the article details. Since then I wrote a reply to the blog authors, who took the review and comments down really fast and wrote me an email with apology and further questions. However for the week in which the review has been up it is linked, cited, copy/pasted and discussed on so many websites/blogs/forums that it is probably impossible to visit and correct all. Yet, I decided to try and I have been roaming the internet for the past maybe 5 hours.

This post is the first place where I have seen someone that has actually made the efford to read the article and understand what we did and the limitations we have in our study. Thank you!

Thank You! Keep up the good work.

 

[Paul98]

Here's a simple test for these "accidental" models.

How long does this atmospheric temperature pause last?

They don't try to predict that. They except in long term these trends even out. So they ran these models and simply took the ones that lined up to the observations of the cycles. Then analyzed the results to see how well they match reality. Skeptical science has a good article and discussion about it if you want the details

 

[Paul98]

It's tough, cause if there is a proper model of the past then it's reasonable to say it can have predictive power.
HOWEVER, this is all done after the fact. No one on the other side said we'd pause, it weakens the argument to discover it after the fact.

What would really sell me is if they accurately predict what comes next. Between now and, say, 2020.

Everyone always knew that natural variations can cool the earth atmosphere. Have you tried to see how much this natural variation should have lowered the temperature? These natural variations move temperatures up and down. Man made global warming is added to those changes.

These models don't try and predict when that cycle changes

 

[dphantom]

Everyone always knew that natural variations can cool the earth atmosphere. Have you tried to see how much this natural variation should have lowered the temperature? These natural variations move temperatures up and down. Man made global warming is added to those changes.

These models don't try and predict when that cycle changes

Why should temperature decrease? We are in a general warming trend since the end of the last Ice Age and certainly since the end of the LIA. I can surmise a number of things. One, could we be seeing a natural warming that has a general rise in the low point of these natural cycles. Two, man is dumping CO2 into the atmosphere so are our models accurate enough to detect that change if any from the natural background changes in temperature. I suspect not as the so-called "pause" in temperatures is not apparent in the models. Perhaps the models are still accurate but are failing to account for a variable yet to be determined.

Climate science would be a fascinating field of research to be in. There is so much we do not know about how our climate changes and why.

 

[Paul98]

Why should temperature decrease? We are in a general warming trend since the end of the last Ice Age and certainly since the end of the LIA. I can surmise a number of things. One, could we be seeing a natural warming that has a general rise in the low point of these natural cycles. Two, man is dumping CO2 into the atmosphere so are our models accurate enough to detect that change if any from the natural background changes in temperature. I suspect not as the so-called "pause" in temperatures is not apparent in the models. Perhaps the models are still accurate but are failing to account for a variable yet to be determined.

Climate science would be a fascinating field of research to be in. There is so much we do not know about how our climate changes and why.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-accurate-when-reflecting-natural-cycles.html

 

[Jaskalas]

Are you telling us these models aren't supposed to be verifiable? Not supposed to demonstrate accuracy with empirical evidence to back up and certify them?

The claim is that they found a few models that "got it right" for present temperature, but I challenge them to continue to do so. To prove their worth in forecasting instead of hindcasting. You're telling me they can't do that, and I agree - but that means no one should base policy or make decisions with such models.

 

[dphantom]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-accurate-when-reflecting-natural-cycles.html

yep good link. some models do and some do not. bookmarked for future reference.

 

[Paul98]

Are you telling us these models aren't supposed to be verifiable? Not supposed to demonstrate accuracy with empirical evidence to back up and certify them?

The claim is that they found a few models that "got it right" for present temperature, but I challenge them to continue to do so. To prove their worth in forecasting instead of hindcasting. You're telling me they can't do that, and I agree - but that means no one should base policy or make decisions with such models.

I suggest you read the comment section you don't understand what is being said and done.

 

[Paul98]

yep good link. some models do and some do not. bookmarked for future reference.

When you can check out the comment section it gives more in-depth information

 

[dphantom]

When you can check out the comment section it gives more in-depth information

I already did.