Reply With Quote
I already posted this in a never-ending AGW pissing match between the faith-based AGW deniers and The Scientific-Fact-based Intelligent Ones.
I already posted this in a never-ending AGW pissing match between the faith-based AGW deniers and The Scientific-Fact-based Intelligent Ones.
WTF. The Koch brothers are liars, I would believe anything they say. This is hilarious, the liberals now quote the Koch brothers as gospel truth. OMG.
Spoken like True Paul Believer.
The Kock-Bros didn't write the report, the scientists did. The report is credible, agreed with because it's more support to the overwhelming evidence for AGW.
Yes.
Does not appear to... can be modeled...
That is dsome real definitive language!
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 01-22-2013 at 08:21 AM.
the Koch Brothers fund the Tea Party groups you're probably a member of, Rolf
Lets see a volcano spews heat
heat can cause ice to melt
this isn't MIT material folks.
YOur hack job's workshop was two years ago. BEST's analysis came from 2012 ie the most recent data. Nevermind that your was intentionally misleading but BEST is drawing these conclusions from the best data we have available.
BEST does not speak in absolutes but simply gives the most accurate presentation that they can. You and your sources could learn from that.
What conclusion?
"appears to"
"can be"
Really now, what did they conclude?
Solar forcing does not fit the model whereas the entire change can be modeled by a sum of volcanism and a single anthropogenic [human-made] proxy.
This is not difficult to discern. Your hope that the sun can account for the warming does not fit with a scientific model however AGW and volcanism does.
Science 1
WC -1
You lose a point for being intentionally obtuse. Of course macro models are not going to be 100% perfect. By nature they are having to make approximations because you cannot account for every atom on Earth. That's why they have % error on thier works to describe how precise it is.
We have discussed how they model things at length. There is your version of coke cans and visions of windmills and then there is scientists versions of phenomenons represented as formulas and then set in motion using differentiation. When they permute in all of those formulas and alter the solar input it does not measure to the observed warming. They also have deducted the notion that it is natural climate variability. Its called deductive reasoning to isolate cause. Your ideal has been deducted.
We both know you are never going to come up with a compelling model that is going to counter their work so you can always hope.
You don't get it Fuzzy. I do understand the argument. I am simply pointing out that "appears to" and "can be" does not make objective science.
What part of percent error was difficult to understand. They do correlation analysis and come up with precise probabilities. That is objective science.
http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/The annual and decadal land surface temperature from the BerkeleyEarth average, compared to a linear combination of volcanic sulfate emissions and the natural logarithm of CO2. It is observed that the large negative excursions in the early temperature records are likely to be explained by exceptional volcanic activity at this time. Similarly, the upward trend is likely to be an indication of anthropogenic changes. The grey area is the 95% confidence interval.
Click here to see the historic temperature record with named volcanos.
After accounting for volcanic and human effects, the residual variability in land-surface temperature is observed to closely mirror (and for slower changes slightly lead) variations in the Gulf Stream.
They are 95% certain it is true for the majority of the analysis. Is it 100% certain? Nope. Is it objective? Yup.
They don't do EZ-bake science and wishful thinking. Now if you understood this as you claim then why the obtuseness?
Last edited by FuzzyLumpkins; 01-22-2013 at 06:54 AM.
Percentage error...
They acknowledge possible error.
The assessment is not necessarily factual, and that is between the recorded data and the model.
Will that same model properly predict the next 30 years with the came confidence level...
You need to learn more about climate modeling I think.
They aren't making predictions. You need to learn more about reading I think. They are talking about what has come before.
We know that you are going to wishful think that the 5% comes true and not only that but the 5% is what you want it to be.
So anyway, you never did comment on the new engineers blowing you off and how that makes you feel. I bet you get that a lot. I know I would ignore you.
What I wish and what I believe are two different things normally, and I do keep them in perspective.
Can you deny there is a world wide agenda to make CO2 as the bad guy?
Can you deny that climate science is not agenda driven?
You can come up with a model that fits the past and claim any level of certainty you want. The test is if it predicts the future, and to date, no past limate model has with anything close to such certainty.
Why would you expect this one to be any better than the past models?
Can you say A-G-E-N-D-A?
Besides.
I seriously doubt it includes the new realization and quantification of what the increased UV band changes do.
The agenda is empirical science. They don't just "come up with a model." It's no surprise that you would think that because that is how you do things ie "it includes the new realization and quantification of what the increased UV band changes do" and other such wishful thinking.
Believe as you wish.
So you are saying that BEST does their work because of an agenda and not because of legitimate empirical science and you tell me believe what I want to believe. Well if you believe that then you can believe it but that just points to both bias, wishful thinking and stupidity.
Fuzzy...
The problem with your Bayesian probability, is it has not yet worked for climate sciences. A famous person once said:
"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."
These models you have faith in continually get proven wrong. Any sharp person with a supercomputer can make a model that simulates the past. All it takes is that one future even to prove it wrong.
I did not say that.
I am saying that most climate research is agenda driven.
To my knowledge, BEST is taking information from other researchers. They still are not privy to all the source data and rely on the interpretations of those who do have agendas.
Fuzzy...
Did you even read the link?
Something to consider:
\Specifically,
a linear combination including solar produces a land surface climate
sensitivity to the IPCC solar forcing function of 0.03 ± 0.49°C/(W/
m2), which is consistent with zero but also subject to large uncertainty.
(Note that for this function the W/m2 represent the variations
assumed by the IPCC radiative forcing model, not actual measured
W/m2.) We also attempted a fit where all parameters were decadally
averaged to smooth over the large swings associated with the solar
cycle in the IPCC forcing model. This also produced an insignificant
result of 0.6 ± 1.7°C/(W/m2) for solar forcing while CO2 and volcanic
changes remained highly significant. Based on these observations, we
conclude that either solar forcing has not been a major component
of the changes in the land-surface temperature record or that the
assumed history for solar forcing is too inaccurate in shape to make a
simple linear fit possible.
When we included solar forcing we
found that the solar variability record assumed by the IPCC did not
contribute significantly to the fit of historic temperature.
Thanks Dr Goolge EZ Bake.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3402.1This knowledge is expressed through prior distributions that are noncommittal on the climate change question. Evidence for detection and attribution is assessed probabilistically using clearly defined criteria. Detection requires that there is high likelihood that a given climate-model-simulated response to historical changes in greenhouse gas concentration and sulphate aerosol loading has been identified in observations. Attribution entails a more complex process that involves both the elimination of other plausible explanations of change and an assessment of the likelihood that the climate-model-simulated response to historical forcing changes is correct. The Bayesian formalism used in this study deals with this latter aspect of attribution in a more satisfactory way than the standard attribution consistency test. Very strong evidence is found to support the detection of an anthropogenic influence on the climate of the twentieth century.
Not yet huh? That was from the first thing I pulled off a google scholar search. There is similar stuff from PSU, the British Royal Society, etc.
Of course your dumb ass would think that they wouldn't use probability analysis on their models. You are one idiot. There are thousands of geniuses working on the problem.
Wow...
You have to search the internet to understand my words?
You are dumber than I thought, and still get it wrong!
I like the way that your link is a fancy way or saying correlation equals causation!
Now we getting the IPCC tin hat bull ? It's like you see IPCC and start looking for a leg to hump. I have better things to do than let you hump mine.
LOL...
The IPCC is an international political body. Did you not know that?
BEST is quoting IPCC stuff.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions