[commanderkai]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Six degrees of separation sounds like a bit of a stretch.

It should be interesting to see if the UK Met people are right--they predict that half of the years from 2010 to 1015 will be warmer than 1998 (currently the warmest on record). That's a pretty ballsy prediction, given this imputed PDO cooling trend.

Wasn't this discovered to be a computer error, and not actually the warmest year on record? I thought 1934 was the hottest year on record?

[N_Fiddledog]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Six degrees of separation sounds like a bit of a stretch.

It should be interesting to see if the UK Met people are right--they predict that half of the years from 2010 to 1015 will be warmer than 1998 (currently the warmest on record). That's a pretty ballsy prediction, given this imputed PDO cooling trend.

Wasn't this discovered to be a computer error, and not actually the warmest year on record? I thought 1934 was the hottest year on record?

No, that concerned the US temperature record, not global, but if the Met ever does actually predict something correctly that will be something worthy of a news headline. They make seasonal predictions every year, and every time I've seen one it turns out to be wrong.

[CanadianJeff]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

As we get closer and closer to Copenhagen, and it becomes more and more obvious it's going to be a lame duck conference, catastrophist Richard Black's caterwauling gets more and more hysterical, and he makes less and less sense.

That's all this most recent whine of Black's is. A desperate cry for attention to a world that's no longer listening.

It must have broken Black's heart when his usually, reliably alarmist BBC had to break down and publish this one...

What happened to global warming?

It's the fact that they DO publish both sides of the story that's admirable here despite your feelings. Not many news outlets would do that. It's why I like BBC.

[N_Fiddledog]

Actually I think if you check out the more lengthy history of BBC's coverage on this issue you'll find it's been pretty consistently biased to the side of warmism. This is why that story which contradicted warming, coming from the BBC received so much attention. Skeptics almost couldn't believe it. They had to rub their eyes.

Try a google on "Jo Abess BBC", or "Bellamy fired by BBC".

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Actually I think if you check out the more lengthy history of BBC's coverage on this issue you'll find it's been pretty consistently biased to the side of warmism. This is why that story which contradicted warming, coming from the BBC received so much attention. Skeptics almost couldn't believe it. They had to rub their eyes.

Try a google on "Jo Abess BBC", or "Bellamy fired by BBC".

And that's as it should be. It's a common fallacy to assume that, because there are two sides to given issue, they both have equal credibility. Given that the vast majority of scientists concur that there has been warming over the last century, then it stands to reason that the warmist's point of view would figure more prominently. Given their actual numbers, the sceptic scientists do quite well.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

And that's as it should be. It's a common fallacy to assume that, because there are two sides to given issue, they both have equal credibility. Given that the vast majority of scientists concur that there has been warming over the last century, then it stands to reason that the warmist's point of view would figure more prominently. Given their actual numbers, the sceptic scientists do quite well.

The problem with those 'actual' numbers is that they've been skewed as the sceptics have been persecuted for speaking out against the religious dogma of AGW believers. This has inevitably had a chilling effect on any actual science that would serve to dispute AGW belief.

I say 'belief' as an actual scientific theory has to be falsifiable and AGW is, as we have seen, "proven" by *all* evidence and it is therefore not a scientific theory.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The problem with those 'actual' numbers is that they've been skewed as the sceptics have been persecuted for speaking out against the religious dogma of AGW believers. This has inevitably had a chilling effect on any actual science that would serve to dispute AGW belief.

I say 'belief' as an actual scientific theory has to be falsifiable and AGW is, as we have seen, "proven" by *all* evidence and it is therefore not a scientific theory.

From: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html

$1:

97% of climatologists believe in anthropogenic global warming.

From: http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html

$1:

Over eight out of ten American climate scientists believe that human activity contributes to global warming,

A belief need not be unfalsifiable. Lots of people believe in things that are falsifiable.

I believe in anthropogenic global warming and my belief is falsifiable. If someone could demonstrate to me why the infrared radiation reflected towards the surface of the planet from excess (anthrpogenically emitted) CO2 molecules would not result in increasing temperature, that would sway my belief. i.e. what is happening to that thermal radiation such that it does not heat the planet.

Or if someone could reasonably demonstrate to me that the increase in CO2 concentration is not primarily as a result of anthropogenic emissions and activities.

I'm sure I have an oversimplistic view, but to me adding more CO2 to the atmosphere and not having the surface warm would be like adding hot water to cold water and not having it warm.

[CanadianGigolo]

Harper is on a secert mission in India,
They 're showing Harper why global warming isn't cause by humans....
Sammy

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/1701.asp

[sandorski]

Depending on Models and particular focus of various Studies, the results vary by quite a bit. Anyone who has followed the formation of an IIPC Report knows that Ranges are used and not just Results. That's because each Research Report comes to somewhat differing conclusions, at least as far as hard numbers are concerned.

As the Deniers like to point out, the Climate is extremely Complex. Due to that Complexity, Research is best done by concentrating on a particular part of the Overall Issue. Data is gathered, analyzed, then Conclusions are formulated. Later, at IIPC gatherings or by other Research Projects, that Data is integrated with the Data of other Research Projects producing new Data and Conclusions.

That is why one Study says Xc by Year Y another says Ac by Year B

[CanadianGigolo]

sandorski sandorski:

Depending on Models and particular focus of various Studies, the results vary by quite a bit. Anyone who has followed the formation of an IIPC Report knows that Ranges are used and not just Results. That's because each Research Report comes to somewhat differing conclusions, at least as far as hard numbers are concerned.

As the Deniers like to point out, the Climate is extremely Complex. Due to that Complexity, Research is best done by concentrating on a particular part of the Overall Issue. Data is gathered, analyzed, then Conclusions are formulated. Later, at IIPC gatherings or by other Research Projects, that Data is integrated with the Data of other Research Projects producing new Data and Conclusions.

That is why one Study says Xc by Year Y another says Ac by Year B

Sorry that doesn't comput ! That makes no sense.... Global warming is an on going thing , humans don't control it.

You can have all the studies you want ... You can't stop it!

NA SAYERS, WHAT ARE THOSE? Humans that don't listen?

Sammy

[N_Fiddledog]

sandorski sandorski:

Depending on Models and particular focus of various Studies, the results vary by quite a bit. Anyone who has followed the formation of an IIPC Report knows that Ranges are used and not just Results. That's because each Research Report comes to somewhat differing conclusions, at least as far as hard numbers are concerned.

As the Deniers like to point out, the Climate is extremely Complex. Due to that Complexity, Research is best done by concentrating on a particular part of the Overall Issue. Data is gathered, analyzed, then Conclusions are formulated. Later, at IIPC gatherings or by other Research Projects, that Data is integrated with the Data of other Research Projects producing new Data and Conclusions.

That is why one Study says Xc by Year Y another says Ac by Year B

I hate to contradict such an obvious expert, but you mean IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), not IIPC, right? If not do you have a link to this IIPC of which you speak?

If it is the IPCC you're talking about, yeah there's multiple model predictions. The ones most often talked about are all wrong.



http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/image ... report.pdf

[sandorski]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

sandorski sandorski:

Depending on Models and particular focus of various Studies, the results vary by quite a bit. Anyone who has followed the formation of an IIPC Report knows that Ranges are used and not just Results. That's because each Research Report comes to somewhat differing conclusions, at least as far as hard numbers are concerned.

As the Deniers like to point out, the Climate is extremely Complex. Due to that Complexity, Research is best done by concentrating on a particular part of the Overall Issue. Data is gathered, analyzed, then Conclusions are formulated. Later, at IIPC gatherings or by other Research Projects, that Data is integrated with the Data of other Research Projects producing new Data and Conclusions.

That is why one Study says Xc by Year Y another says Ac by Year B

I hate to contradict such an obvious expert, but you mean IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), not IIPC, right? If not do you have a link to this IIPC of which you speak?

If it is the IPCC you're talking about, yeah there's multiple model predictions. The ones most often talked about are all wrong.



http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/image ... report.pdf

Ya, IPCC, thanks for the correction. They're not "Wrong" though, just not 100% accurate.

[N_Fiddledog]

Check out the high end model prediction. (The trend line at the top) Remember the 6 degrees of warming predicted in the article? That high end prediction on the graph would be slightly below the prediction in the article. Compare that to the red line at the bottom which is real world measurement. Do you see how nutty that 6 degree estimate is now?

The low end prediction of +2.3 would not do any of the horrible things you've heard of in prophesy from Richard Black, Al Gore and others. You won't have to sell your waterfront property quick - let's put it that way. Gore knows this. That's why he's not selling his.

[sandorski]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Check out the high end model prediction. (The trend line at the top) Remember the 6 degrees of warming predicted in the article? That high end prediction on the graph would be slightly below the prediction in the article. Compare that to the red line at the bottom which is real world measurement. Do you see how nutty that 6 degree estimate is now?

sigh, did you read what I posted or just fixate on my IPCC error?

[N_Fiddledog]

What I fixated on was this...

$1:

They're not "Wrong" though, just not 100% accurate.

Again check out the difference between the high end, and the real world trend lines. This thread concerns a prediction above that high end. It's nuts.

Don't be telling me not to look behind the curtain. My name's not Dorothy.