Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
zygalski said:
Terminator X said:
[And only 25 per cent agreed that global warming has been less than projected over the past 15 to 20 years, even though the IPCC reported that 111 out of 114 model projections overestimated warming since 1998.
Ok fair enough.For those 15 years there was indeed less warming than predicted...however...in the 15 years prior to that there was MORE warming than had been predicted. Surprise eh?
So whats the Overall effect? The models over the last 50 years are are broadly correct
http://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/topic_observedchanges.php
or here
https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/scrutiny-of-...
"Conclusion: ...although AR4 did make a statement about the recent 15-year trend being consistent with past IPCC predictions. This time AR5 notes that nearly all models run too hot over the [15] period since 1998 but also notes that the models generally underestimated the warming in the preceding 15-year period. Over periods of 50 years or more – the timescale in which we expect the signal from greenhouse gases to be clearer – the models show good agreement with observations."
zygalski said:
Name a single scientific institution that does not accept the IPCC's stance on AGW.
It should be fairly easy, since there's no consensus....
And the above answer is why they are all on their own when it comes to AGW and why they NEVER will be able to name a Scientific Institution that doesn't accept the IPCC's stance on AGW. None of our resident deniers ever check what they are saying and when they do they then decide to misrepresent whats been said or cherry pick individual sentences.It should be fairly easy, since there's no consensus....
Fish in a barrel.
Jinx said:
LoonyTunes said:
Todays new entry in at number 42 are Geologists who don't agree with the cult
42. European Federation of Geologists
Anybody got a credible scientific institution who doesn't believe in AGW?
"EFG is a professional organisation whose main aims are to contribute to a safer and more sustainable use of the natural environment, to protect and inform the public and to promote a more responsible exploitation of natural resources."42. European Federation of Geologists
Anybody got a credible scientific institution who doesn't believe in AGW?
FFS it was set up to milk the teat of CAGW
LoonyTunes said:
And the above answer is why they are all on their own when it comes to AGW and why they NEVER will be able to name a Scientific Institution that doesn't accept the IPCC's stance on AGW. None of our resident deniers ever check what they are saying and when they do they then decide to misrepresent whats been said or cherry pick individual sentences.
Fish in a barrel.
" the models show good agreement with observations"Fish in a barrel.
Except they don't. They have admitted such (getting it wrong before 1998 and after 1998) but because they are wrong in both f'ing directions somehow you accept their "good agreement" BS. FFS LT two wrongs do not make a right. Hence all we know is the models do not get the temperatures right and therefore their projections may be 100% wrong.
You are so desperate to take their word as gospel you are unable to even read the words properly.
Jinx said:
LoonyTunes said:
And the above answer is why they are all on their own when it comes to AGW and why they NEVER will be able to name a Scientific Institution that doesn't accept the IPCC's stance on AGW. None of our resident deniers ever check what they are saying and when they do they then decide to misrepresent whats been said or cherry pick individual sentences.
Fish in a barrel.
" the models show good agreement with observations"Fish in a barrel.
Except they don't. They have admitted such (getting it wrong before 1998 and after 1998) but because they are wrong in both f'ing directions somehow you accept their "good agreement" BS. FFS LT two wrongs do not make a right. Hence all we know is the models do not get the temperatures right and therefore their projections may be 100% wrong.
You are so desperate to take their word as gospel you are unable to even read the words properly.
Models shown to be wrong...uh oh.
stew-STR160 said:
Jinx said:
LoonyTunes said:
And the above answer is why they are all on their own when it comes to AGW and why they NEVER will be able to name a Scientific Institution that doesn't accept the IPCC's stance on AGW. None of our resident deniers ever check what they are saying and when they do they then decide to misrepresent whats been said or cherry pick individual sentences.
Fish in a barrel.
" the models show good agreement with observations"Fish in a barrel.
Except they don't. They have admitted such (getting it wrong before 1998 and after 1998) but because they are wrong in both f'ing directions somehow you accept their "good agreement" BS. FFS LT two wrongs do not make a right. Hence all we know is the models do not get the temperatures right and therefore their projections may be 100% wrong.
You are so desperate to take their word as gospel you are unable to even read the words properly.
Models shown to be wrong...uh oh.
<Attrition loop reboot>
Nobody ever said the Models would be exactly correct - it's all about probabilities with climate models.
I quote from page 65 as I can't be arsed to retype it all ...
What he doesn't grasp is that the models predict 'probability' and not the exact change.
Weather forecasts similarly predict tomorrows probable temperatures - and they are usually correct within a certain range.
No Scientific Body or Individual Scientist has EVER claimed otherwise.
In the quote the deniers are using they are cleverly hiding this fact as after that phrase it says...
The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the systems future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.
Which backs up what we all know - except for the cultists obviously.
Every prediction is about 'probability' and to argue anything else is deliberate ignorance.
So when an IPCC report comes out saying that we have (say) 5 years to fix something or in 30 years time the temperature will rise 1.5 degrees more than it currently is (and 91 Scientists agree) they are all agreeing about the probability that we have about 5 years to fix it or that temp rise will happen.
Focussing on models is typical for deniers though as they have precious little else to support their belief system.
stew-STR160 said:
Jinx said:
FFS it was set up to milk the teat of CAGW
Careful Jinx, that could be construed as conspiracy talk...An organisation of 26 National Associations "representing 45,000 Geoscientists" (yes 45,000) WAS SET-UP to milk funds from AGW
Yeah, I think you qualify.
ETA I've just remembered that sadly I can't add Jinx to the list of the Tin Foil Hat Brigade - he's already on it
Edited by LoonyTunes on Wednesday 17th October 10:10
LoonyTunes said:
Again, YAWN.
<Attrition loop reboot>
Nobody ever said the Models would be exactly correct - it's all about probabilities with climate models.
I quote from page 65 as I can't be arsed to retype it all ...
What he doesn't grasp is that the models predict 'probability' and not the exact change.
Weather forecasts similarly predict tomorrows probable temperatures - and they are usually correct within a certain range.
No Scientific Body or Individual Scientist has EVER claimed otherwise.
In the quote the deniers are using they are cleverly hiding this fact as after that phrase it says...
The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the systems future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.
Which backs up what we all know - except for the cultists obviously.
Every prediction is about 'probability' and to argue anything else is deliberate ignorance.
So when an IPCC report comes out saying that we have (say) 5 years to fix something or in 30 years time the temperature will rise 1.5 degrees more than it currently is (and 91 Scientists agree) they are all agreeing about the probability that we have about 5 years to fix it or that temp rise will happen.
Focussing on models is typical for deniers though as they have precious little else to support their belief system.
You didn't do probability at university did you LT (I did). If the model is 100% wrong in both directions that doesn't make it right on average. It means it has no skill at all. If the model has no skill then the underlying understanding of the system is flawed. If they are saying we have 5 years it means they do not understand the issue because there is no reducing CO2 emissions (India and China will not reduce their economic growth) . If they say we should all adopt the Paris accords then they have no understanding of the issue (as Paris does nothing to reduce total emissions - merely creates a huge green fund for certain individuals to spend as they see fit - and can't do that without a nice expenses account can they?). If they say that temperatures will rise 1.5 degrees in 30 years they have no understanding of the issue (.1 degree per decade is the actual current rate if you smooth out the El Nino bumps)<Attrition loop reboot>
Nobody ever said the Models would be exactly correct - it's all about probabilities with climate models.
I quote from page 65 as I can't be arsed to retype it all ...
What he doesn't grasp is that the models predict 'probability' and not the exact change.
Weather forecasts similarly predict tomorrows probable temperatures - and they are usually correct within a certain range.
No Scientific Body or Individual Scientist has EVER claimed otherwise.
In the quote the deniers are using they are cleverly hiding this fact as after that phrase it says...
The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the systems future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.
Which backs up what we all know - except for the cultists obviously.
Every prediction is about 'probability' and to argue anything else is deliberate ignorance.
So when an IPCC report comes out saying that we have (say) 5 years to fix something or in 30 years time the temperature will rise 1.5 degrees more than it currently is (and 91 Scientists agree) they are all agreeing about the probability that we have about 5 years to fix it or that temp rise will happen.
Focussing on models is typical for deniers though as they have precious little else to support their belief system.
So they can agree all they want - as did Knut's advisers - they all agreed he could turn the tides..... nature though doesn't give a flying f
k what 91 scientist agree.LoonyTunes said:
Jinx said:
..nature though doesn't give a flying fk what 91 scientist agree.
And neither do you about what 10's of Thousands of Scientists agree. k what 91 scientist agree.And neither do you about what 10's of Thousands of Scientists GUESS.
That's better !!!
PS
'10's of Thousands of Scientists ' Oh really? If it's true, that bandwagon is dam big, I think the wheels are about to fall off though!
Here we go Jinx - the names and email addresses for many Climate Scientists.
https://www.desmogblog.com/media-journalist-contac...
Drop a few a line (cut 'n' paste your above bullshine) with your assertion and come back with both the question and answer you get.
Here's the first one but there are a few:
Dr. Andrew Weaver
University of Victoria
School of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Phone: 250-472-4006
Expertise: Climate Modelling and Forecasting
You won't.
https://www.desmogblog.com/media-journalist-contac...
Drop a few a line (cut 'n' paste your above bullshine) with your assertion and come back with both the question and answer you get.
Here's the first one but there are a few:
Dr. Andrew Weaver
University of Victoria
School of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Phone: 250-472-4006
Expertise: Climate Modelling and Forecasting
You won't.
LoonyTunes said:
Here we go Jinx - the names and email addresses for many Climate Scientists.
https://www.desmogblog.com/media-journalist-contac...
Drop a few a line (cut 'n' paste your above bullshine) with your assertion and come back with both the question and answer you get.
Here's the first one but there are a few:
Dr. Andrew Weaver
University of Victoria
School of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Phone: 250-472-4006
Expertise: Climate Modelling and Forecasting
You won't.
A few on that list are deceased. I wonder if their names will still be used as active supporters.https://www.desmogblog.com/media-journalist-contac...
Drop a few a line (cut 'n' paste your above bullshine) with your assertion and come back with both the question and answer you get.
Here's the first one but there are a few:
Dr. Andrew Weaver
University of Victoria
School of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Phone: 250-472-4006
Expertise: Climate Modelling and Forecasting
You won't.
And that list is an approved list of supporters.
Why not share a list of flat earthers and suggets we go ask them for their proofs?
With This Staff said:
gadgetmac said:
El stovey said:
Ali g
I thought I’d seen the posting style before.After approx 20 years frequenting this site, a pincer move by flashermac and Loony enforced a leave of absence.
Talk about stifling debate!
stew-STR160 said:
A few on that list are deceased. I wonder if their names will still be used as active supporters.
And that list is an approved list of supporters.
Why not share a list of flat earthers and suggets we go ask them for their proofs?
Yeah, as I thought, you won't. And that list is an approved list of supporters.
Why not share a list of flat earthers and suggets we go ask them for their proofs?
Try any Uni or bona-fide Scientific Establishment, anywhere in the world.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff