Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2014 - 02:04pm PT
|
haha, you seriously expect us to believe you pulled that quote from the IPCC report and STILL "don't know why they concluded" what they concluded? Which is worse, being a liar who relies on wattsupwithat for cutting edge climate analysis, or an idiot who can't read?
Did you catch this part:
In summary, there is very high confidence that models reproduce the
general features of the global-scale annual mean surface temperature
increase over the historical period, including the more rapid warming
in the second half of the 20th century, and the cooling immediately
following large volcanic eruptions.
And box 9.2?
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2014 - 02:20pm PT
|
So you admit you never actually read the IPCC report and just pulled that out of context quote from wattsupwithat.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2014 - 02:55pm PT
|
I agree with the data. I don't agree with the language. Hiatus means something has stopped. The warming has not stopped, it has slowed.
If they had involved me in the writing of the IPCC report I would have strongly suggested they not use "hiatus" because "fuking idiots like sketch and chuffnuts can't understand simple trend analysis and would misinterpret the word to support their ignorant, uninformed, preconceived notion that climate change is a hoax."
See how the black lines STILL go up in the last 16 years? That means the warming has not stopped, just slowed down. If you could read, I would suggest reading the report, starting with box 9.2, for clarification... but we both know that ain't going to happen.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2014 - 03:13pm PT
|
And you STILL "don't know why they concluded" what they concluded? So you are an idiot?
|
|
TomCochrane
Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2014 - 03:16pm PT
|
Ed, thanks for hanging in there...
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2014 - 03:16pm PT
|
Mechrist: you're arguing with a supporter of the confederate flag.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2014 - 03:59pm PT
|
The problem Wes is that pronounced slowing trend in upwards temps was not predicted in the scientific literature nor models, unless you count post hiatus explanation. So this indicates errors in TCR,internal variability estimates, forcing values,missing negative feedbacks, over estimated positive feedbacks, possible other unidentified mechanisms, or any combination of the above.
Ed's plot seems to be based on adjustments and infills of temp data to "fit" the "imagined reality" of the models. This is the hardcore denialist position of a segment of the CAGW community in the face of the collapse of the industry and the cherished ideology propelling it.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2014 - 04:53pm PT
|
The problem Wes is that pronounced slowing trend in upwards temps was not predicted in the scientific literature nor models,
You see it as a problem because you are an idiot who doesn't understand the first thing about science. Scientists see it as an opportunity because they are committed to learning and understanding.
Newtonian gravity didn't predict time dilation so we can't be sure oranges fall down instead of up. Idiot.
Hey Sketch, how come you STILL "don't know why they concluded "111 out of 114 realizations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble"?"
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2014 - 05:27pm PT
|
Well wes, in the face of this wonderful scientific opportunity to learn why reality is not conforming to projections, claims of 95% certainty in AGW and the range of projected temp increases from a CO2 doubling are a bit premature, wouldn"t you say?
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2014 - 05:51pm PT
|
Nope Sumner, I wouldn't say that... because I understand science.
You do realize the observed temperatures still fall within the range of model predictions, right? Granted, they are towards the low end... but the models are run on computers, not a life-sized replica of the Earth. The predictions were made in 2008(?), are still reasonably close to the observations, and are providing insight into how Earth's climate works. Hell, I remember back in 2008 when you dipshits were STILL denying humans increased the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere and insisting the temperature wasn't increasing. See how far you've come?
And surely you aren't as dumb as chuffnuts and realize that temperature is still increasing, right?
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2014 - 06:10pm PT
|
Only if you compare them to adjusted temp data, otherwise there is only 3 out of over a hundred tracking close, Wes. Kind a blows a hole in the certainty ascribing sensitivity ranges and percentage of attribution to anthro causation.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2014 - 06:21pm PT
|
Kind a blows a hole in the certainty ascribing sensitivity ranges and percentage of attribution to anthro causation.
I suppose to someone with little or no understanding of science it might seem that way.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2014 - 06:26pm PT
|
So let's get this straight--
the models completely failed to predict the hiatus and have done much worse than just saying something like "the climate next year will probably be about the same as the climate this year."
But somehow they are validating "science"?
Perhaps that's like the hiatus explanations noted in the last Economist article I linked to, which, if all were correct, would mean that the climate should be dramatically cooling now (instead of pretty much staying the same)?
(I'm not counting Ed's fake hindcast models. Perhaps I'm just being a stickler, but I think that a prediction has to be made before an event occurs for it to "count.")
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2014 - 06:34pm PT
|
So let's get this straight--
the models completely failed
You got nothing straight. The only complete failure is your comprehension.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2014 - 07:16pm PT
|
Once again, chuffer. Box 9.2, if you can read.
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf
Also, you remember the difference between climate and weather, right? We've talked about this before. The standard period for "climate" is 30 years. A 15 year slowing of the warming trend is STILL a warming trend and is pretty insignificant compared to the rapid increase over the previous 30 years... or the increase over the 100+ years before that.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2014 - 08:34pm PT
|
So let's get this straight--
the models completely failed to predict the hiatus and...
stop.
Your sentence is wrong.
OK--if you'd care to give it a serious explanation, I'll happily consider.
(Not that your job is to make me happy, but it's kind of like what they used to say if in school--don't be afraid to ask a question, as it's almost certain that others have it too.)
Off the bat, I can see at least two ways my sentence could be wrong--perhaps the models did correctly predict something, or perhaps we're back to disputing whether the "hiatus" exists.
Ed's posting about what the models predict is pretty much useless to anyone who's trying to evaluate them because he seems incapable of understanding that "predicting" things that have already happened just doesn't cut it.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2014 - 08:36pm PT
|
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2014 - 08:56pm PT
|
Why NASA is world leading.Hansen.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!