Reply With Quote
Harmonic analysis was developed first in the 19th century. By the the 1930s they had moved well beyond that and were developing quantum mechanics. It is what it is.
LOL...
Newest reference in that was 1941.
Harmonic analysis was developed first in the 19th century. By the the 1930s they had moved well beyond that and were developing quantum mechanics. It is what it is.
Are you saying the temp isn't within the model envelope? Because if so - as usual - you're wrong.
It's hugging the bottom of the error bounds -- a good sign that something is off. Kinda the whole point of the OP.
Maybe the temperature is just in denial.
Lots of things are off. The models are obviously imperfect. However, the current temps are within the envelope of likely outcomes. The models were never meant to be interpreted as some kind of linear forecast and you know that. Or you should. Furthermore they're certainly not meant to provide you with an annual time series as to what the future temps are going to be. There is large variability within the temperature record in the past on interannual and interdecadal time frames. There was no reason to think there wouldn't be going forward.
The boundaries of those estimates were put in place for a reason. They're not there for decoration. While the temps remain within those bounds the only one in denial is you. Per usual.
I just think its funny that the IPCC provided a range of outcomes and the temp is still within that range yet you somehow think thats evidence that the climate is less sensitive to CO2 than the IPCC indicated.
Logic is hard.
Considering the acknowledgement that other forcing is greater than thought, it should raise some eyebrows.
Considering the acknowledgement that the UV forcing in the upper atmosphere was lesser than you had hoped for should say something. This is not a tug of war where you get momentum and all of a sudden win, dip .
There is an objective reality and scientists are finding the appropriate weighting. You are running out of places to hold out hope for trivializing GHGs sold by your corporate sponsors and their proxies. You are the imperfect storm of sophistry and dumb.
I see that whole thing went right over your head.
I have already demonstrated your thinking on the subject is more than a little flawed, yet you persist in not examining your beliefs or underlying assumptions, or at least giving any indications that you might be doing so.
My only question is... why do you not do that?
I must admit to more than a little bit of puzzlement about that.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-15-2013 at 11:15 AM.
IPCC projected temperature increase (1990 to 2012)
1990: 0.51 to 1.04 C
1996: 0.48 to 0.68 C
2001: 0.47 to 0.86 C
2007: 0.52 to 0.8C C
Observed: 0.12 to 0.16 C
I have aready pretty much pointed out twice here that you seem to reach a lot of definite conclusions or claim things not supported by evidence. Here and previously.
You want me to assign you credibility, when you are contradicting experts and actual scientists who have tens of thousands of hours of work in their respective fields, and attempting to show your amatuer understanding is deep enough to credibly debunk an entire body of work so thoroughly as to get me to think it is wrong, and YOU, and you alone, are right about this.
In the end, I have to figure out who to believe.
I have made up my mind, yes.
Your claims require a whole lot more evidence that you have ever been able to show. You commit pretty consistant logical fallacies, and other flawed thinking.
In the end, the climate scientists don't have to be 100% right for us to choose a course of action. That ultimately makes your critiques rather pointless.
You DON'T know better than those scientists, whether you want to admit it or not.
Those scientists are going to make mistakes. I can accept that.
You cannot.
I am willing to assign them credibility in their field.
You cannot.
You claim to want to get the science correct, but that is dissembling, as Lumpkins corrctly pointed out.
I think it is safe to say that you hate Democrats and progressives, I think to a degree that makes you somewhat irrational.
Your opinion of yourself is that you are smarter than most and are better at finding the truth than others, it would appear to me.
Since climate change is something that Democrats and progressives think is correct, you therefore MUST find some way to disprove that, not matter how intellectually vacuous your position ultimately is. The problem is that if Democrats and progressives are correct about AGW, that means they are basing their worldviews on data, sound reasoning, and good science. You are convinced they do not, by defintion, do that. This represents a problem for you, and creates cognitive dissonance. YOU are the one who is rational, and evidence driven. You cannot therefore take a stance that is not.
You are attempting to reduce your cognitive dissionance by this kind of ignorant nitpicking. You want to keep believing that your worldview is driven by data, sound reasoning, and good science, so that is why you spend so much time on disproving the work of these experts.
They MUST be wrong, because your worldview CANNOT be wrong.
This is what is going on in your head, and this is why I do not need to get far into what you are saying to show this going on.
You are, in my opinion, smarter than average. That comes with a price though. Smart people are far more capable of rationalizing their mistakes, and of doing this sort of thing to reduce cognitive bias.
That is all I really see in your posts.
If you have this much passion for it, get some education, and get doing actual science. Quit farting around in chatrooms and *do* something.
Prove me wrong. Publish a few papers. Do the science.
SO you answer question about why you don't seem to ever evaluate your underlying assumptions even when your flawed reasoning has been clearly demonstrated to you, by regurgitating something that is, essentially, more flawed reasoning. i.e. cherrypicking?IPCC projected temperature increase (1990 to 2012)
1990: 0.51 to 1.04 C
1996: 0.48 to 0.68 C
2001: 0.47 to 0.86 C
2007: 0.52 to 0.8C C
Observed: 0.12 to 0.16 C
In- ing-credible.
I guess I should know by know when I am being trolled, so I have only myself to blame for taking you seriously for even a minute. Well-played, you got me on this.
My god, when will your stupidity end?
Where is it that causes you to assume such bull ?
Link please.
As I said before, I will let the future's history be my judge.
I am not making the wild predictions they are. the climate sciences are still not well understood. Most of what I do is point out the fallacies they come up with. Show that they cannot be correct. I am not capable of of making their presumptuous claims. Nobody can with a strait face.
Obviously. You are not open to finding the truth.
Of course I am.
I have to balance what you are trying to say with what the science says, especially what large group of scientists say about the science they themselves are actually doing.
Could you be correct about some things? Sure.
That doesn't mean your inexpert opinion outweighs that of bona fide experts.
You argue that it should, because of some nebulous unproven charges of bias, and hidden agendas, on the part of people you don't politically agree with.
Sorry, not buying it.
As I said before, the point, though, is mostly moot.
We should be limiting our CO2 emissions, and not only that it is in our economic best interests to do so.
The problem for your particular viewpoint/theory is that we will improve our understanding as time goes by. It will get harder and harder to claim that there is some coverup or that we just don't understand enough to make some reasonable predictions based on the science that actual scientists have done.
I don't require anything approaching perfection to make reasonable calls for policies that mitigate potential risks, especially when those risks have unknown probabilities and large magnitudes. It boggles my mind that you think that is necessary. It isn't.
We need to do something, and nothing you have said obviates that, because we need a lot more than your amatuer nitpicking to change that particular risk calculation.
Humanity cannot afford for you to be wrong about how bad it might get, and I personally think your "do nothing" bull is outright dangerously stupid.
So let's sum up:
One one hand, I have an amateur, unpublished internet guy, who I absolutely KNOW has a rather marked tendency towards logical fallacies, intellectual dishonesty, and a distinct tendency to confirmation bias, who claims:
1. Humanity is not affecting our climate at all, all the changes we see are perfectly natural and out of our control.
and
2. All those climate scientists who think we are affecting things are either lying, or too stupid enough to figure out the real truth that amateur, unpublished internet guy has discovered.
therefore,
3. We should just do nothing about our CO2 emissions, or other pollution.
On the other hand we have tens of thousands of scientists, and scientific organizations who claim:
1. Humanity is affecting our climate, quite possibly negatively, and potentially catastrophically negatively.
and
2. Therefore we should take some action to mitigate the worst potential outcomes, before it is too late to do so.
It wouldn't bother me if I wasn't in the experimental test tube with you. You could be as stupidly incorrect as you want to be, and I wouldn't be affected.
Since I am affected, I resent the out of it.
The costs of you being wrong far outweigh the costs of you being right, and the benefits are just as clear for doing something, over doing nothing.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-15-2013 at 04:32 PM.
LOL. You're such a hack. There's no reason to believe you have a degree in any type of engineering. None. You've never displayed any type of knowledge that someone with such a degree would have. LOL software patents. Zero cred on anything scientific.IPCC projected temperature increase (1990 to 2012)
1990: 0.51 to 1.04 C
1996: 0.48 to 0.68 C
2001: 0.47 to 0.86 C
2007: 0.52 to 0.8C C
Observed: 0.12 to 0.16 C
Figure 1.4: Estimated changes in the observed globally and annually averaged surface temperature (in C) since 1990 compared with the range of projections from the previous IPCC assessments. Values are aligned to match the average observed value at 1990. Observed global annual temperature change, relative to 1961–1990, is shown as black squares (NASA (updated from Hansen et al., 2010; data available at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/); NOAA (updated from Smith et al., 2008; data available at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.html#grid); and the UK Hadley Centre (Morice et al., 2012; data available at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/) reanalyses). Whiskers indicate the 90% uncertainty range of the Morice et al. (2012) dataset from measurement and sampling, bias and coverage (see Appendix for methods). The coloured shading shows the projected range of global annual mean near surface temperature change from 1990 to 2015 for models used in FAR (Scenario D and business-as-usual), SAR (IS92c/1.5 and IS92e/4.5), TAR (full range of TAR Figure 9.13(b) based on the GFDL_R15_a and DOE PCM parameter settings), and AR4 (A1B and A1T). The 90% uncertainty estimate due to observational uncertainty and internal variability based on the HadCRUT4 temperature data for 1951-1980 is depicted by the grey shading. Moreover, the publication years of the assessment reports and the scenario design are shown.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 04-16-2013 at 03:23 AM.
Summer Ice Melt On Antarctic Peninsula Is Now Nonlinear, Fastest In Over 1000 Years
A new study finds “a nearly tenfold increase in melt intensity” on the Antarctic Peninsula in the last few hundred years.
Here’s the most worrisome news from this 1000-year reconstruction of ”ice-melt intensity and mean temperature” published in Nature Geoscience:
The warming has occurred in progressive phases since about AD 1460, but intensification of melt is nonlinear, and has largely occurred since the mid-twentieth century. Summer melting is now at a level that is unprecedented over the past 1,000 years. We conclude that ice on the Antarctic Peninsula is now particularly susceptible to rapid increases in melting and loss in response to relatively small increases in mean temperature.
In short, while some mistakenly assert the climate is less sensitive than we thought, the fact is that polar ice loss is accelerating far beyond what the models had projected even a few years ago, and the whole region appears even more sensitive than previously thought.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...er-1000-years/
lol, ad hominem bs.
absolutely not. Like most of the right-wing bubbas here, you don't even understand your side's positions, have any facts, to support your emotional/biased "positions"
Figure 1.4: Estimated changes in the observed globally and annually averaged surface temperature (in C) since 1990 compared with the range of projections from the previous IPCC assessments. Values are aligned to match the average observed value at 1990. Observed global annual temperature change, relative to 1961–1990, is shown as black squares (NASA (updated from Hansen et al., 2010; data available at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/); NOAA (updated from Smith et al., 2008; data available at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.html#grid); and the UK Hadley Centre (Morice et al., 2012; data available at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/) reanalyses). Whiskers indicate the 90% uncertainty range of the Morice et al. (2012) dataset from measurement and sampling, bias and coverage (see Appendix for methods). The coloured shading shows the projected range of global annual mean near surface temperature change from 1990 to 2015 for models used in FAR (Scenario D and business-as-usual), SAR (IS92c/1.5 and IS92e/4.5), TAR (full range of TAR Figure 9.13(b) based on the GFDL_R15_a and DOE PCM parameter settings), and AR4 (A1B and A1T). The 90% uncertainty estimate due to observational uncertainty and internal variability based on the HadCRUT4 temperature data for 1951-1980 is depicted by the grey shading. Moreover, the publication years of the assessment reports and the scenario design are shown.
I'm lmao because that is Figure 1.4 from the IPCC AR5 draft that was leaked in December.at Manny and Random. Take your complaints to the IPCC
but, but, the Antarctic peninsula is melting nonlinearly. -thinkprogress
you up like TBbut, but, the Antarctic peninsula is melting nonlinearly. -thinkprogress, TP is reporting scientific studies, not TP opionating/screeding like Fox or other right-wing hate media.
Add Reuters to the list of denier news outlets
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...93F0AJ20130416
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
