Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

>The contention that our models systematically underestimate reality is incorrect, and defies logic: if it were true that we were systematically failing in one direction, we’d make the models bias in the other direction.

It's possible for such biases to persist for a long time: In general, older climate models tended to overestimate the amount of CO2 that would be emitted but underestimate the effects it would have. The latter especially tends to persist because climate scientists are under a lot of pressure to not overstate their claims, given the very well-funded and active work to discredit claims about climate change (as well as a very human desire, given the lack of action, to be optimistic).

(You can also see a similar effect with the growth in adoption of solar power: even the most optimistic sources have and likely still continue to underestimate how much new solar will be installed in the next few years, because it's just growing so mind-bogglingly fast)



> It's possible for such biases to persist for a long time: In general, older climate models tended to overestimate the amount of CO2 that would be emitted but underestimate the effects it would have.

I didn't want to get into this because it clouds the topic at hand and makes it sounds like I'm debating the quality of the models, but you're just objectively wrong -- it's well-known that some of the major climate models have "run hot":

https://www.science.org/content/article/use-too-hot-climate-...

In addition, every publication (including this one) that use modeling results show a wide dispersion around the mean.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: