Reply With Quote
I think he's referring to this chart, which was in the draft
Which was replaced with this chart in the approved draft
The approved version seems much more obscure
Thats cute.
I think he's referring to this chart, which was in the draft
Which was replaced with this chart in the approved draft
The approved version seems much more obscure
The approved version shows how individual models are below observations. It shows the ranges. Its not obscure, it simply doesn't show what you want it to show. Furthermore, its ty journalism to use draft copies to write articles. I've never read the guys other work but this article but this one is bad. Very bad.
Observed temps are hugging the bottom of their confidence limits. And this is after successive downgrades of their projections. One can only wait and see, I suppose.
Successive downgrades? The FAR had a wide range, the SAR was WAY too narrow and the TAR was increased to what was basically a combination of the two. AR4 was broken up into emissions scenarios (which we currently fall between) and AR5 is even more nuanced. This continued to talk of "downgrades" or "revised downward" is the talk of people who have no idea what is actually in the reports.
Look, I don't care if you read it but at least stop making up.
Don't cry Manny...
I was a bit less concerned with the specifics than the general tone.
I honestly haven't had the time to delve into the report. I have, though, little doubt that the sociopath deniers will do their usual ed lying and distorting of the actual science, per par for that wing of whackadoo pseudoscientists.
If warming trends end up at the low end of projections in 50 years, as they have recently done, awesome. Hopefully my kids won't have to pay for the sociopaths' and coal/oil inductry shills lying about what the science says.
I do find that we don't know why the warming trend has leveled off somewhat to be worrying though. Hopefully the next few years will sort some of this out.
Welcome back, ad hominem guy.
I read more of the guys work after that one article and his tone is bull too. He makes a habbit of flat out lying in his articles. It makes me sad that this is the level of journalism we have to deal with.
One of the biggest issues faced here is the idea of false equivalence. When you have people who just constantly deny and lie the current state of science eventually people start to give them credence simply because they make so much noise. Whether or not they are factually correct doesn't matter because surely no rational person would ignore the actual science so much, right?
Well, wrong. I can tear down most common denier arguments but that doesn't matter because most people can't. Mostly people have no idea bout concepts like specific heat or margins of error and as such just accept what someone says with authority as fact. Nevermind that the person speaking with said authority may not know what they're talking about or may be flat out lying.
Arctic Sea Ice and Al Gore's "Prediction 2013"
Predictably, the voices of denial are rising as Arctic sea ice melt season peaks and ranks only fifth-lowest ever. The clamor is being raised over Al Gore's Nobel Prize acceptance speech quote supposedly saying that Arctic sea ice would be gone by 2013.1 What Gore did or didn't say is beside the point: For the propagandists delivering this message, the objective is "cast doubt and discredit." From Gore's speech:
Last September 21 (2007), as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.2
And yes, the deniers cannot even add. Not only did Gore not say "by 2013," but it would be 2014 at the soonest. ... On to reality:
The Navy researcher that leads this "new study" team that the former vice president alludes to is Wieslaw Maslowski at the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey, California. The team's research was funded by the Department of Energy (DOE), the Office of Naval Research (ONR), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Maslowski also did not say "by 2013" in his original research in 2007 or when it was republished in 2009. This grandstanding about sea ice and Gore, for whatever reason, is a huge and egregious deception. The actual prediction from Maslowski's 2009 publication is, "Autumn could become near ice free between 2011 and 2016."
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/18...rediction-2013
<sigh> Wash, rinse, repeat
I don't know what it is about the subject that turns Manny and RG into boutons. <smh>
Nobody can possibly become The Great Boutons.
you right-wing assholes and duped/willful BigCarbon shills deserve every slap we lay on you.
They do approach your level of vitriol when it comes to AGW.
You have no idea what those words mean.
You aren't wrong because you are sociopaths. Even sociopaths can tell the truth. That would be ad hominem.
You are sociopaths because you lie so much, and with a very specific, deceptive purpose.
While one should not assume, mostly, that you are lying and untrue when you talk about this subject, one should subject your claims to a good deal of skepticism.
It generally doesn't take much digging to see how dishonest they are.
It is the fact that there are a certain group of people out there actively lying about real science in a systematic, purposeful way, e.g. PopTech's list, or the "climategate" emails.
People like you lying to my face pisses me off greatly.
You mean where manny goes into specifics to refute what you claim and then you ignore it and continue with this tact. At least trolls try to be funny. You are just s my.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLG...fHsWPfAIyI7VAP
If you ever have the time to explore the issue in some detail and poke holes in a lot of the hoopla, that playlist does it. He even goes after Al Gore and some of the more alarmist stuff.
Both sides get a broadside or two, but the people doing most of the lying are not the scientists.
RG -- Do you think all climate scientists fall into the alarmist camp?
They just don't get those models right. Do they.
Hint....
Increase the effect of soot in the models.
do you really think 1000s of scientists don't know about particulate landing on ice? If so, please email IPCC and clue them in with WC's Climate Science expose.
I think they know full well the actual impacts. I think those in control cherry pick the data they want to write the findings they want.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
