Hacker News Reader

Comment by semi-extrinsic | Hacker News Reader

Here is a graph with various model predictions towards 2100, under a "business as usual" scenario. As you can see, even the most pessimistic models are below 2C by 2050. I have no idea where 3.5C by 2035 came from, no models predict such a shocking rate. (We were only up ~0.7C over the last century.) Also note that none of these models reproduce the last decade's global warming hiatus; given that constraint, temperature predictions for 2100 will be slightly cooler.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Warming_Predicti...

View on HN

This discussion just confuses me completely. I'm a scientist (of the mathematical variety) and absolutely of the thought that human-made climate change is the largest current threat to human civilization.

But here we have at least seven different claims that vary wildly, from "catastrophe practically guaranteed" to "this problem can be handled in a straightforward way if we focus".

Given that I'm not a climate scientist, who should I listen to?

Some have criticized the IPCC report as too conservative/optimistic, but it is as close to a consensus document as exists.

Thanks, that's helpful. Is the IPCC criticism gathered in one place somewhere, or would it require reading a lot of different sources?

My understanding is that there's a fairly wide range of assumptions that can underlie a given model, which depend on what we will actually do about this. For example, how do you estimate CO2 output over the course of the next century? Do you assume that it remains at current levels, or keeps growing at the same rate it has been so far, or that whatever treaties were signed that promise to reduce it actually will?

Just listen to whoever says the thing you want to hear.

But keep this in mind: sometimes people say things to advance their own agenda.

The person you responded to asked a serious question. Your answer is in no way helpful or insightful.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com