Climate change Climate change - Page 6
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Posts 51 to 60 of 66

Thread: Climate change

  1. #51

    My post count is Majestic

    d000hg - scorchio!

    d000hg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    My house
    Posts
    31,970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EternalOptimist View Post
    Completely wrong.
    Anyone who believes in evolution will be able to give you a thousand things that would prove the theory wrong. They are not experiments that need to be done, but simple observations of fact.
    e.g. if a human skeleton were found in a sediment that preceded the amoebas, it would be impossible to claim that the amoeba evolved from the humanoid.
    Was that a typo or a cutting remark on humankind?
    Quote Originally Posted by MaryPoppins View Post
    I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
    Quote Originally Posted by vetran View Post
    Urine is quite nourishing

  2. #52

    The beerded one

    EternalOptimist is NOT a disguised employee

    EternalOptimist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Castle Saburac
    Posts
    22,442

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by d000hg View Post
    Was that a typo or a cutting remark on humankind?
    you need to read it again
    (\__/)
    (>'.'<)
    ("")("") Born to Drink. Forced to Work

  3. #53

    Super poster

    pjclarke 's job has never been outsourced


    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,828

    Default

    and snow will become a thing of the past
    And so, with a dreary inevitabilty, we come back to the official CUK climate change denier favourite killer argument. Twelve years ago, a non-science journalist assembled an extraordinarily sloppy rent-a-quote piece which yielded one or two denier-friendly sentences. The piece was completely at odds with the scientific thought then and now. But hey, its all we've got so we are going to ignore the hundreds of actual scientific papers and quote it again. And again. And again. And again.

    Could it get more sad?

    http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...ml#post1472998
    My subconscious is annoying. It's got a mind of its own.

  4. #54

    More fingers than teeth

    BlasterBates - scorchio!

    BlasterBates's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    1922 Commitee
    Posts
    13,276

    Default

    The truth about IPCC predictions:

    Last edited by BlasterBates; 3rd April 2012 at 06:18.
    I'm alright Jack

  5. #55

    Super poster

    pjclarke 's job has never been outsourced


    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,828

    Default

    Let us deploy a little scepticism. These are not model runs so what is actually plotted here? No reference so let's make an educated guess; these look like the trends quoted in the Summaries of the IPCC reports, e.g. AR1:
    Based on current models, we predict: under [BAU] increase of global mean temperature during the [21st] century of about 0.3 oC per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 to 0.5 oC per decade);
    so what the compiler of this piece of nonsense seems to have done is attach a trend line of 0.3C/decade onto the actual 1990 temp - which by happy (for him) was a local peak. And WHOOSH - the projection soars away from the observations! Never mind that the trend was meant to cover a whole century, with most of the warming happening towards the end.

    Similarly the summary of AR2 (1995) gave a best estimate of a 2C rise by 2100, the reduction due to an increased understanding of aerosols. Again the authors seem to have attached a trend line of 0.2C/decade to the actual temperature, and off we go!

    For AR3 the actual numbers are available - IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001 - Complete online versions | UNEP/GRID-Arendal - Publications - Other...

    The scenarios were baselined in 1990 making a comparison fairly straightforward. Choice of scenario doesn't make much difference in the first few decades, but choosing scenario A1F1, which is arguably the nearest to actual conditions, the IPCC model projected a rise from 1990-2010 of 0.32C or 0.16C/ decade. The actual trend was 0.165C/decade.

    I've no idea what this misleading graph is plotting, however the actual data from the IPCC shows that far from overestimating the actual rise, the current generation of models is spot on.

    Sceptical Science have pages on each of the actual IPCC report forecasts - using the data not the summaries - and Realclimate recently updated their regular model/data comparisons. None of them looks anything like this graph. A little more scepticism is called for!
    My subconscious is annoying. It's got a mind of its own.

  6. #56

    The beerded one

    EternalOptimist is NOT a disguised employee

    EternalOptimist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Castle Saburac
    Posts
    22,442

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pjclarke View Post
    .... climate change denier favourite killer argument. Twelve years ago, a non-science journalist assembled an ...

    Could it get more sad?
    These aren’t the failed predictions you’re looking for. Move along.



    (\__/)
    (>'.'<)
    ("")("") Born to Drink. Forced to Work

  7. #57

    More fingers than teeth

    BlasterBates - scorchio!

    BlasterBates's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    1922 Commitee
    Posts
    13,276

    Default

    the current generation of models is spot on.
    You mean the models which are constantlly adjusted to fit what actually happened, because the old ones are wrong. The model you put up was reconstructed in 2000, because the models they had in 1990 are completely wrong, and of course most of that graph is a hindcast, they just simply fitted it to what went on before. It's now beginning to deviate pretty siginficantly and that deviation is going to grow as it gets cooler.

    Don't you think there will be a new generation of models in 10 years time?

    The IPCC dataset is in any case inaccurate:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/

    It really is pathetic.
    Last edited by BlasterBates; 3rd April 2012 at 08:51.
    I'm alright Jack

  8. #58

    Super poster

    pjclarke 's job has never been outsourced


    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,828

    Default

    Well, here is the source of the graph 1990 IPCC predictions confront the data | Clive Best

    Clive Best did indeed take text from the 1990 IPCC report, and derive a linear trend from it. He then attached that trend to the actual temperature in 1990.

    The IPCC curves are based on a linear increase using the 1990 temperature value of HadCrut.


    Statistical balony: comparing a linear trend with observations starting at a local peak artificially translates the IPCC projections upwards. The actual trends in HADCRUT and UAH since 1990 are 1.7 and 1.6C, well within the range projected by the IPCC.

    This is not "The truth about IPCC predictions:" by any stretch of the imagination.
    My subconscious is annoying. It's got a mind of its own.

  9. #59

    More fingers than teeth

    BlasterBates - scorchio!

    BlasterBates's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    1922 Commitee
    Posts
    13,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pjclarke View Post
    Well, here is the source of the graph 1990 IPCC predictions confront the data | Clive Best

    Clive Best did indeed take text from the 1990 IPCC report, and derive a linear trend from it. He then attached that trend to the actual temperature in 1990.





    Statistical balony: comparing a linear trend with observations starting at a local peak artificially translates the IPCC projections upwards. The actual trends in HADCRUT and UAH since 1990 are 1.7 and 1.6C, well within the range projected by the IPCC.

    This is not "The truth about IPCC predictions:" by any stretch of the imagination.
    And if you shift the curve down to the smoothed average, doesn't make a lot of difference really, does it, you mean instead of being incredibly way out it's just extremely way out.

    Nice try...but I think everyone can draw their own conclusions.
    I'm alright Jack

  10. #60

    Super poster

    pjclarke 's job has never been outsourced


    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,828

    Default

    Nice try...but I think everyone can draw their own conclusions.
    What - that the actual (1.6) is more than the lower predicted range (1.3) and less than the higher (2.8?) One would hope so. Also they can make a judgement as to the integrity of Blog Scientist Clive Best and by extension those who cite him.
    My subconscious is annoying. It's got a mind of its own.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •