Slashdot Mirror

First I want to point out that you are the first person here to actually link to the study. Well done! I like you so much I don't even want to argue. But we ought to discuss something, otherwise the whole thing is for naught.

The paper you linked to says that although model resolution has increased (basically, computing power), the range of projected temperature change has not narrowed. I don't disagree with that.

The IPCC report is merely a compilation (albeit a useful one) based on studies that have been published. Since AR5, a number of new studies have come out that the IPCC report was not able to take advantage of (because they didn't exist). This one showing that the models overestimate, for example, and this one trying to explain the overestimation are enough to give you an example.

So now it is on you. How do you integrate those two studies I linked to into your worldview?

Whenever I read the words 'climate model', I generally replace them in my head with the words 'wildly inaccurate climate model'. Scott Adams has some interesting things to say [dilbert.com] about the subject

Forget Scott Adams, look was Nature has to say on the subject: models have overestimated warming. Again, a more recent study, models have overestimated warming. There will be plenty of work in the next decade to figure out why.

I personally believe humans definitely do influence climate,

What you believe is utterly irrelevant.

You don't need to link to Roy Spencer (if you don't want to). You can link to peer reviewed studies. There are plenty of studies showing they're wrong. This too.

everything is happening faster than expected by all but the most pessimistic models. (Even most of them are being outpaced by reality.)

Wow no, the opposite, the models over-estimate, as multiple studies have shown. Graph.

The probability that multi-decadal internal variability fully explains the asymmetry between the late twentieth and early twenty- first century results is low (between zero and about 9%).

The climate models are wrong. Peer reviewed, actual science.

While we're on the topic, a new study just came outhttp://dailycaller.com/2017/06...">fully admitting the models are wrong. They've over-predicted the amount of warming we've seen, compared to reality. Here's a link to the paper.

So it's reasonable to assume that the worst predictions from AGW are not going to happen.

This website has the first page visible for free. You can see the other pages, but they have a blur effect (I wonder if a sufficiently good algorithm could make a good guess at restoring the actual text) over top of it, so you can't read anything, but charts are still visible.

I don't think this is an actual scientific study. There's even a big "Analysis" at the top of the first page in the header, so I'm guessing someone just crunched some numbers to solve a Fermi problem of sorts. Not that you can't do data analysis, but without reading the full thing who really knows how good that analysis is.

Also, shouldn't this paper be free anyhow since LBNL is run through the DOE?

Oh, and the actual study in question had nothing to do with the Kuna people. I don't know whether the /. submitter or the CBC journalist got that wrong, though.

Here is the source: Full text and pictures here or as a PDF here.