Re:Climate models are running red hot, and scientists don’t ...
by SiempreViernes on Monday February 03, 2020 @12:51PM
(#22226774)
Wow, yeah: the argument is pretty weird on a second reading.
There seems to be an effort to use the the historical example of Milikan, where a respected authority got a slightly low value, and all subsequent measurements all ended up above it, because that's where the truth was. Then it is claimed that likewise for climate change models above the average are preferred.
But this actually doesn't make any sense! First, because in the Milikan example the problem was subsequent experiments were biased conservative, meaning the bias would be expected towards under heating models. In other words, the lesson from Milikan is that there is a risk our models aren't heating fast enough.
So by the quoted example we should be worry that our models under predicts, and yet Milikan is stood up to argue the models are too wild in their warming predictions?
There seems to be an effort to use the the historical example of Milikan, where a respected authority got a slightly low value, and all subsequent measurements all ended up above it, because that's where the truth was. Then it is claimed that likewise for climate change models above the average are preferred.
But this actually doesn't make any sense! First, because in the Milikan example the problem was subsequent experiments were biased conservative, meaning the bias would be expected towards under heating models. In other words, the lesson from Milikan is that there is a risk our models aren't heating fast enough.
So by the quoted example we should be worry that our models under predicts, and yet Milikan is stood up to argue the models are too wild in their warming predictions?