FReepmail me to get on or off
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
How about hedge your bets on global warming?
review
Mars is getting warmer too.
It must be the Martians tooling around in SUV's.
Well, I am certain that simulations (God they love their sims dont they?, easy science, no field work) for a mere 100 years of earths climate history compared to measured data with margins of error itself is nothing impressive to me.
Many models were made in the long ago past to explain movements of planets, sun, moon. Some worked pretty good too. But the bigger picture blew them out of the water.
The “simulations” of those days could not explain the grand picture at all with any accuracy.
Now we have come a long way since then.
But we cannot experiment on planetary levels with climate over vast time spans.
They are gazing into crystal balls constructed of equations and processors, and attempting to predict the future of something that I strongly suspect truly do not have a complete grasp of the massive complexity of.
Oh, and gotta love the language...
“Comes Under Attack”
Questioning, testing, proving, disproving, is not an “attack”.
Lawrence Solomon's "The Deniers" (a series of articles on the view of scientists who have been labelled "Global Warming Deniers"):
Other References:
The thing is, if they don’t have other factors included like the varying activity of the sun and cosmic rays affects on cloud formation they had to tweak the other inputs to their model so that it came up with the right results. Which in short means their model will fail to predict the future because it is simply wrong.
That's a minimum 10% error across the entire period modeled (the 20th Century).
Are we supposed to ignore that part or what?
Exsqueeze me?
Does that mean it could be as bad, worse or better than currently predicted?
Can we please just cut funding to all these studious idiots?!?
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
‘more complete analysis of uncertainty’? How the hell do you do an analysis on that which is uncertain? Hedging your bets is more likely looking for cover when their predictions don’t come true. When is doesn’t happen, they will cay there was too much ‘uncertaintanty’
No responsible researcher is denying that human activity is significantly influencing climate. They're simply unsure of the magnitude and direction of that influence.
Since none of the effects are intentional - they're the results of garbage spewed into the atmosphere by human attempts to get rich and powerful - I'd be very worried about what's coming.
Terrified.
I don’t think that graphic is accurate at all.
First of all, the models have predicted more warming than has ocurred (even the fudged observation temperature data.)
Second, the 1930s and 1940s were warmer than the Observation line shows.
Third, the Observation temperature line should peak in 1998 and decline up to today (rather than be smoothed up to 2000 and then cut-off.)
the problem with their graph is the “observations” line. Just this week the “1998 was the warmest year on record” line was devastated by proof that their analysis was flawed. NASA and the GISS have had to correct their data for the US, the “most accurate, complete and important” of any of the data sets that is being used in these models. They had to admit that 1934 is back to being the warmest on record, with 5 of the top 10 being in the 30s. Their graph shows everything from about 1985 on to be much warmer than the peak in the 30s and we know that’s simply not true.
In descending order of believability there are lies, damned lies, statistics, presentation graphics and global warming science. (with apologies to Benjamin Disraeli and Mark Twain)
The obvious point is that input of aerosols and CO2 are strongly correllated. It is virtually impossible to separate their countervailling effects.
In addition, the varinance of the parameters characterizing their contributions is HUGE, perhaps larger than the estimates themselves, which seems to the authors point.
You can’t average the models to lower the variance because the models are in no way independent, they rely on the same observations. The variance of the ensemble is no better than the variance of the individual members. All that varies is the authors estimates of the reliability (weights) of the various observations. (It might be “fair” to assign average variance to the “metamodel”.)