undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdmbche2y ago0 comments

Alright so the ipcc makes multiple projections, with some being "hot", in the sense that they are worse than their other predictions. I think they made like 6 predictions last report.

This papers is just arguing that the "hot" predictions should be less intense, because they are not very good at reproducing some specific past dataset.

That has nothing to do with a problem with hot models - it's a slight modification to them.

You seem to be arguing in bad faith. Your article even seems to imply that the hot models are fine with predicting present data, just jot the data of the last ice age. Who cares? What has that got to do with anything? No one is only looking at the hot model!

0 comments

revelio2y ago

The article says this: many of the models are getting hotter with time in ways that are clearly wrong, but climatologists routinely use them anyway out of some misguided belief in "model democracy" i.e. that all models are equally valuable and correct even when they disagree strongly with each other so should just be averaged together. It's pointed out that this undermines vast amounts of the supposedly settled science.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsdmbche2y ago0 comments

Alright so the ipcc makes multiple projections, with some being "hot", in the sense that they are worse than their other predictions. I think they made like 6 predictions last report.

This papers is just arguing that the "hot" predictions should be less intense, because they are not very good at reproducing some specific past dataset.

That has nothing to do with a problem with hot models - it's a slight modification to them.

0 comments

revelio2y ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse