STOP PRESS...Climate Change...ER, Temp NOT going up..OPPS
Discussion
Since 2007, there has been a growing focus on the fact that global average temperatures haven't gone above the level recorded in 1998.
The panel (IPCC) states that it is 95% certain that the "human influence on climate caused more than half the observed increase in global average surface temperatures from 1951-2010."
In the latest draft summary, seen by the BBC, the level of scientific certainty has increased.
ER bit of bad maths there BBC. 95% of half is er 47.5%.
To continue:-
"Overall, the message is, in that sense more conservative I expect, for this IPCC report compared to previous ones," said Prof Petersen.
"The language has become more complicated to understand, but it is more precise.
"It is a major feat that we have been able to produce such a document which is such an adequate assessment of the science. That being said, it is virtually unreadable!"
There, that's that sorted then, isn't it?
The panel (IPCC) states that it is 95% certain that the "human influence on climate caused more than half the observed increase in global average surface temperatures from 1951-2010."
In the latest draft summary, seen by the BBC, the level of scientific certainty has increased.
ER bit of bad maths there BBC. 95% of half is er 47.5%.
To continue:-
"Overall, the message is, in that sense more conservative I expect, for this IPCC report compared to previous ones," said Prof Petersen.
"The language has become more complicated to understand, but it is more precise.
"It is a major feat that we have been able to produce such a document which is such an adequate assessment of the science. That being said, it is virtually unreadable!"
There, that's that sorted then, isn't it?
The BBC report is gobbly gook as well.
I love scientific 'reports' full of expressions such as:-
'more than half' & 'very likely due to' That's prooved the argument then, hasn't it?
Does admit though
'But since 2007, there has been a growing focus on the fact that global average temperatures haven't gone above the level recorded in 1998.'
Opps
End quote of article:-
"It is a major feat that we have been able to produce such a document which is such an adequate assessment of the science. That being said, it is virtually unreadable!"
I love scientific 'reports' full of expressions such as:-
'more than half' & 'very likely due to' That's prooved the argument then, hasn't it?
Does admit though
'But since 2007, there has been a growing focus on the fact that global average temperatures haven't gone above the level recorded in 1998.'
Opps
End quote of article:-
"It is a major feat that we have been able to produce such a document which is such an adequate assessment of the science. That being said, it is virtually unreadable!"
OP, the 95% isn't related to the amount of global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions so you shouldn't divide it by 50% - the report suggests that at least half of the measure change in global climate is as a result of green house gasses and that the scientists have 95% confidence in that result... In other words, there are lots of factors that can cause changes to global climate but the report says that the scientists involved are fairly certain (99% certainty would count as "certain") that at least half of that is down to us. Over the last 15 years it appears that the other factors that can cause climate change have been acting to cause cooling and as a result the changes caused by greenhouse gas emissions have been masked.
Put another way, if I'd been informed that there was 95% certainty that Chilton and Marussia were going to win the next GP and could get the normal betting odds on that happening, I suspect I'd be down the bookies putting at least a tenner on it happening!
Put another way, if I'd been informed that there was 95% certainty that Chilton and Marussia were going to win the next GP and could get the normal betting odds on that happening, I suspect I'd be down the bookies putting at least a tenner on it happening!
Edited by Lotus 50 on Monday 23 September 08:16
Edited by Lotus 50 on Monday 23 September 08:24
And this is why I don't usually bother with climate change threads on here. Too much over-strident guff from people who either don't understand or simply refuse to understand anything about scientific process. Or in many cases plain logic and comprehension.
Mr Lotus 50, good luck - but they won't be listening.
Mr Lotus 50, good luck - but they won't be listening.
Edited by TooLateForAName on Monday 23 September 08:27
TooLateForAName said:
And this is why I don't usually bother with climate change threads on here. Too much over-strident guff from people who either don't understand or simply refuse to understand anything about scientific process.
Please enlighten us, with regards to climate change. It would be a public service.Just for you Blib,
see the text and graphic top right of this link
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/profile.asp?h=0...
I'll be back later to see what that changes to!
see the text and graphic top right of this link
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/profile.asp?h=0...
I'll be back later to see what that changes to!
TooLateForAName said:
And this is why I don't usually bother with climate change threads on here. Too much over-strident guff from people who either don't understand or simply refuse to understand anything about scientific process.
This is PH. The views of people who have spent their entire professional careers studying things are valid only if they agree with our own completely uninformed views. Having said that, you do have to take any complex statistical scientific research with a pinch of salt.
TooLateForAName said:
Just for you Blib,
see the text and graphic top right of this link
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/profile.asp?h=0...
see the text and graphic top right of this link
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/profile.asp?h=0...
kambites said:
This is PH. The views of people who have spent their entire professional careers studying things are valid only if they agree with our own completely uninformed views.
Having said that, you do have to take any complex statistical scientific research with a pinch of salt.
This is not science. This is computer modelling.Having said that, you do have to take any complex statistical scientific research with a pinch of salt.
There is a clip of Nigel Farage slating the EU over this.
He has pictures of the ice caps increasing by 16% over the last year and states scientists believe we are entering 30 years global cooling!
The point he makes about us crippling our own economy with taxes and silly wind turbines while China and the USA prosper is very very real.
He has pictures of the ice caps increasing by 16% over the last year and states scientists believe we are entering 30 years global cooling!
The point he makes about us crippling our own economy with taxes and silly wind turbines while China and the USA prosper is very very real.
kambites said:
Blib said:
This is not science. This is computer modelling.
It's both. I suspect the majority of scientific research these days involves a significant element of computer modelling. It certainly did when I was at university. The difference with climate science is that these chaps propose a hypothesis and then force the results to fit. If some inconvenient data is forthcoming, it is either ignored or "massaged".
This is a parody of true science. There is no search for truth, there is only faith.
kambites said:
Blib said:
But, the data does not match the models. Hasn't done so for a decade and more. So, these comics trust the models and not the data. This is science?
Interesting. Do you have access to implementations of the models that are currently in use then? I'd love to see them. 
Really?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff