Article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-75481-z

    • aqwxcvbnji [none/use name]
      ·
      4 years ago

      He links to 6 climate scientists, so I believe this is credible. Also, apparently the paper is based on a model developped by business professors, so their credibility isn't that high.

      The post

      Just about every reputable climate scientist currently active on twitter has been calling this bunk all day.

      https://twitter.com/richardabetts/status/1326948034979172356?s=20

      https://twitter.com/Knutti_ETH/status/1327006226224439296?s=20

      https://twitter.com/queenofpeat/status/1326939156040327168?s=20

      https://twitter.com/CColose/status/1326956220503240705?s=20

      https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1326959675401768962?s=20

      https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1326993036820156416?s=20

      • GravenImage [none/use name]
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 years ago

        every NEOLIBERAL climate scientist, you can't get someone to disagree with the people who pay them.

        • aqwxcvbnji [none/use name]
          ·
          4 years ago

          I'm gonna need some more evidence of their "neoliberalism" before I disregard scientists in this topic. I'm not saying it's not possible, i'm just sceptical at the moment.

    • science_pope [any]
      ·
      edit-2
      4 years ago

      The biggest issue is that it's a very simple model that runs very quickly, which means it's unlikely to capture any dynamics that rely on any kind of spatial heterogeneity, ocean circulation, and so forth. There's likely feedback mechanisms that simply aren't captured in their model, and it's not clear whether the feedback mechanisms it does capture are accurately modeled. The paper acknowledges these shortcomings and suggests that more complex models should be run to verify their results. There's good reason to be skeptical of this particular result until that happens.