Register to Comment
Like Tree13570Likes
  1. #47011
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    36,795

    Global warming 'set to speed up to rates not seen for 1,000 years'

    This paper is avaialble open course.

    Let any reader read it for himself, and be the judge.


    Average C temperature rise per decade, assuming carbon emissions peak in 2040 and decline afterwards.

    Who wants to bet the farm(not just the farm, the planet) on projections like this not being correct?

    As Nassem Taleb said, uncertainty is not our friend here - if getting worse is equally likely as getting better, is ignoring the risk a good approach to managing the problem?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #47012
    seabhcan seabhcan is offline
    seabhcan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    24,024

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    Oh, what a loada bollix. Isn't this the same old boring, tiresome shyte deniers serve up?

    • Obviously, all physical models & predictions of the universe are incorrect because "models don't generate data", as this cretinous post claims.
    • Clearly, all economic models & predictions are also incorrect because "models don't generate data".
    • Also, all demographic and population models & predictions are also incorrect because "models don't generate data".

    All branches of sciences uses computer & mathematical models.

    Yes, models can be criticised, but to go for the max and declare that all models are unusable on the basis of a single (good, by the way) paper is surely the megalomaniac mark of the denier who will throw out all of science in order to "get" those pesky climatologists.
    You cannot pretend that a model generates 'data'. Model generate predictions. Essentially these guys have averaged hundreds of other peoples predictions and come up with a new prediction. Its all based on nothing.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #47013
    Trainwreck Trainwreck is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    19,013

    Quote Originally Posted by seabhcan View Post
    This proves Climate Science is not a real science. Few fields would get away with this.

    Global warming 'set to speed up to rates not seen for 1,000 years' | Environment | The Guardian

    "The analysis, based on a combination of data from more than two dozen climate simulation models from around the world, looked at the rate of change in 40-year long time spans."

    Models don't generate data.

    And then this graph:



    It should be a smooth line after 2015 on the graph as after that point it is a prediction and subject to massive uncertainty. Having all that noise in the line is essentially a fraud - a claim that the 'data' is more precise than it possibly can be. Peer reviewers should have picked that up.
    It is so misleading when they have historical and predicted data on the same chart with no break to show where one begins and one ends.

    Have a look at the measured trend from HadCRUT4 data and compare the measured 40 year trends as at 1950 and as at 2015 (today):





    The 40 year global trend was 1.24 degrees per century in 1950.
    The 40 year global trend was 1.66 degrees per century today.

    That chart understates the trend in the past and overstates it today - although it is hard to tell what is prediction (the acceleration) and what isn't.

    Complete charletons.



    #Time series (hadcrut4) from 1850 to 2014.58
    #Selected data from 1910
    #Selected data up to 1950

    #Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0124391 per year
    1910 -0.437087
    1950 0.0604776
    #Data ends
    #Number of samples: 2
    #Mean: -0.188305
    e
    #Data processed by Wood for Trees: Home
    #Please check original source for first-hand data and information:
    #
    #----------------------------------------------------
    #Data from Hadley Centre
    #http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/h.../download.html
    #For terms and conditions of use, please see
    #Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets
    #----------------------------------------------------
    #
    #File: hadcrut4_monthly_ns_avg.txt
    #
    #Time series (hadcrut4) from 1850 to 2014.58
    #Selected data from 1975
    #Selected data up to 2015

    #Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0166382 per year
    1975 -0.0729792
    2014.58 0.585616
    #Data ends
    #Number of samples: 2
    #Mean: 0.256319
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #47014
    Trainwreck Trainwreck is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    19,013

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    This paper is avaialble open course.

    Let any reader read it for himself, and be the judge.


    Average C temperature rise per decade, assuming carbon emissions peak in 2040 and decline afterwards.

    Who wants to bet the farm(not just the farm, the planet) on projections like this not being correct?

    As Nassem Taleb said, uncertainty is not our friend here - if getting worse is equally likely as getting better, is ignoring the risk a good approach to managing the problem?

    Uncertainty isn't yours to manipulate as a device to pretend that catastrophe is imminent.


    I have just worked out that that entire char is model output. Not even the historical portion is actual data - as I point out it overstates the rate of warming today and understates the rate of warming in pre-AGW times.


    This is no better than someone drawing a line on a piece of paper with a crayon.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #47015
    Trainwreck Trainwreck is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    19,013

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    This paper is avaialble open course.

    Let any reader read it for himself, and be the judge.
    As long as they don't judge that the paper is garbage, right?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #47016
    seabhcan seabhcan is offline
    seabhcan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    24,024

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    As Nassem Taleb said, uncertainty is not our friend here - if getting worse is equally likely as getting better, is ignoring the risk a good approach to managing the problem?
    What if 'getting worse' turns out to be not likely at all. What you propose is chicken-licken politics.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #47017
    Trainwreck Trainwreck is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    19,013

    More research indicating that the theory is deficient and the models are fatally flawed:

    The albedo of Earth | Climate Etc.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #47018
    SirCharles SirCharles is offline
    SirCharles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    16,370

    Quote Originally Posted by Fabo02 View Post
    you dont have to be superman to observe a fact, but you have to be superman to twist that fact for your own purposes
    You seem to be talking to yourself, kid.

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    ... the dangers of ignoring the experts ... or

    ... how to get the last laugh, even a hollow one.

    There’s a scene in “Merchants of Doubt” that expresses this contradiction, perhaps without meaning to.

    In a vintage TV clip, we see legendary ’80s talk-show host Morton Downey Jr. – a Dionysian figure if ever there was one, and the spiritual godfather of Beck and Limbaugh — berating cardiologist and tobacco researcher Stanton Glantz, who was foolhardy enough to go on Downey’s show and talk about the dangers of second-hand smoke.

    “I’m 55 years old and I smoke four packs of cigarettes a day,” Downey crows, “and I’ll be damned if I don’t look 20 years younger than this guy!”

    It’s true — he cuts a suave and dapper figure next to the rumpled, balding Glantz, and the studio audience explodes in a joyous Dionysian frenzy: Science is bull************************! Smoking keeps you young! Our fate is in the hands of the gods!

    It’s also true that Downey died of lung cancer in 2001 (after spending his last years in the Apollonian mode, as a penitent ex-smoker), while Glantz is still with us, writing, doing research and bedeviling the tobacco industry.

    The lesson might seem obvious – but the facts, as Nietzsche told us long ago, are only part of the story.

    Climate deniers and other pimped-out professional skeptics: The paranoid legacy of Nietzsche’s “problem of science” - Salon.com
    => “Merchants of Doubt” Threaten Lawsuit against Filmmaker?

    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #47019
    jmcc jmcc is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    41,090

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    Oh, what a loada bollix. Isn't this the same old boring, tiresome shyte deniers serve up?

    • Obviously, all physical models & predictions of the universe are incorrect because "models don't generate data", as this cretinous post claims.
    • Clearly, all economic models & predictions are also incorrect because "models don't generate data".
    • Also, all demographic and population models & predictions are also incorrect because "models don't generate data".

    All branches of sciences uses computer & mathematical models.

    Yes, models can be criticised, but to go for the max and declare that all models are unusable on the basis of a single (good, by the way) paper is surely the megalomaniac mark of the denier who will throw out all of science in order to "get" those pesky climatologists.
    To understand Ode and Chuckie, it would be best to watch the Monty Python and the Holy Grail witch scene:


    Models simply seek to derive some explanations and or verify various hypotheses from data and, in some cases, make predictions based on that input data. Having to explain this to some of the Climate Change Jihadists is like trying to explain Astronomy to the kind of people who read the Astrology section of their newspaper and believe it.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #47020
    SirCharles SirCharles is offline
    SirCharles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    16,370

    The real "Climate Change Jihadists" are those characters who deny the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behaviour. => Climate change denial
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment