Re : The Porsche 718 GTS bombshell | PH Footnote
Discussion
ANOpax said:
Except that they don’t. They didn’t predict the pause and they don’t explain the MWP.
We're not in a pause... You could be forgiven for thinking that if we were still in 2014 (if you'd failed to account for minor temporary fluctuations), but it's not 2014. Haven't you seen any surface temp measurements from the last 6 years?...TheOrangePeril said:
We're not in a pause... You could be forgiven for thinking that if we were still in 2014, but we're not. Haven't you seen any surface temp measurements from the last 6 years?...
Agreed - no longer in a pause. But the fact remains that the models failed to predict it. ANOpax said:
TheOrangePeril said:
We're not in a pause... You could be forgiven for thinking that if we were still in 2014, but we're not. Haven't you seen any surface temp measurements from the last 6 years?...
Agreed - no longer in a pause. But the fact remains that the models failed to predict it. Which models are you talking about that failed to predict it? The IPCC forecasts general trends stretching 100 years hence, why are you so hung up on a minor, temporary, and partly illusory deviation when the overall trend is actually holding true as predicted?
TheOrangePeril said:
Even the pause that you mention was not an actual hiatus but a mere slowdown, as air temperatures continued to rise, only at an attenuated rate.
Which models are you talking about that failed to predict it? The IPCC forecasts general trends stretching 100 years hence, why are you so hung up on a minor, temporary, and partly illusory deviation when the overall trend is actually holding true as predicted?
Well, seeing that we’re 30 years into the IPCC’s forecasts from AR1 and 15 out of those 30 years have not demonstrated any statistically significant warming, I’d say that the models are only half right directionally. Which models are you talking about that failed to predict it? The IPCC forecasts general trends stretching 100 years hence, why are you so hung up on a minor, temporary, and partly illusory deviation when the overall trend is actually holding true as predicted?
And then there’s the Mann hockey stick in AR3.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Well, I'd buy ya a fu€&ing pint anyway! 
Just my 2 cent to those who keep harping on that the 'climate scientists are wrong, as they predicted this would happen, and it didn't, blah, blah, blah':
It is year 2000 (I've just chosen this as a random year - this is all just an example I'm giving, I've no idea what happened in the year 2000 - I spent most of it drunk!), and climatologists/climate scientists predict that: 'on current forecasts, if we don't stop pumping out so much x/y/z, then the result to the planet will be increased a/b/c (this being a bad thing). What happens then is people start waking up, the ball starts rolling and people start doing the right thing: buying more economical cars, installing solar panels, companies start reducing waste, corporations start investing in eco-projects, we change our old lightbulbs to LED's, etc., etc., etc..
The result? The worst case scenario predicted in 2000 has been avoided. So now in 2020, the climatologists/scientists - while acknowledging that progress has been made - need to make new predictions based on newer, current information, and thus declare again that under current revised predictions, if we continue to keep pumping out so much x1/y1/z1, then the result to the planet will still be increased a1/b1/c1.
So what does the 2020 world do?
REALITY A: Well the snowball has gathered size and pace, and now we have Gretas and Taycans, and an increased awareness that more needs to be done, so progress and awareness is further promoted and encouraged, to try battle against these latest predictions.
REALITY B: Climate deniers drag up the report from the year 2000, and try tell the world that the 'so-called climate scientists are quacks, as they got all the predictions wrong, as here we are in 2020 and a/b/c didn't happen', thus conveniently ignoring the fact that the reason it didn't, was because not everybody ignored those reports back in 2000, and actually acted upon them. The predictions back in 2000 (as the predictions now) were based on no external factors changing, that current practices would continue. But of course they did change - and they continue to change as more of the world gets on board.
If A continues, then B will be the result. I changes are made to A, then clearly the outcome will be different. The B predicted 20 years ago didn't happen, because not all of us continued in our lives with our heads in the sand over the last 20 years: and hopefully now that more pull their heads from the sand - predictions today of C being made a result in 2040, will have been averted too.
Not that difficult really..... well, it makes sense in my head!
anonymous said:
[redacted]
No I’m not. Read the bit of my post that you quoted again. I can usefully paraphrase you to make my point another way;
I am a professional forecaster. Climate scientists don't know anything that forecasters don't know about forecasting. In fact they know a great, great deal less. Everything they write is written in that context. They don't have any insights into forecasting. They only have political bias.
Edited by ANOpax on Friday 24th January 11:28
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff