PDA

View Full Version : Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years


UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
09-12-2013, 09:12 PM
http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Climate%20model%20results/over%20estimate.pdf

That’s the upshot of a new study in the journal Nature Climate Change that compared 117 climate predictions made in the 1990's to the actual amount of warming. Out of 117 predictions, the study’s author told FoxNews.com, three were roughly accurate and 114 overestimated the amount of warming. On average, the predictions forecasted two times more global warming than actually occurred.

[/url]

BowlenBall
09-13-2013, 07:06 AM
[QUOTE]the study’s author told FoxNews.com/QUOTE]

http://joshmonroemarketer.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/empower-network-seems-legit.jpg

W*GS
09-13-2013, 10:08 AM
NTSA.

On mismatches between models and observations (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/on-mismatches-between-models-and-observations/)

BroncoBeavis
09-13-2013, 10:31 AM
NTSA.

On mismatches between models and observations (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/on-mismatches-between-models-and-observations/)

Money line:

Working out what is responsible for what is, as they say, an “active research question”. LOL

Translation: We built a model. It says the world will end. It doesn't really work. But this stuff is really super complex, so we're still working all that out. But meanwhile, just to be safe, let's just assume the world will still end. Because that's what the model said when we made it.

W*GS
09-13-2013, 10:36 AM
Translation: We built a model. It says the world will end. It doesn't really work. But this stuff is really super complex, so we're still working all that out. But meanwhile, just to be safe, let's just assume the world will still end. Because that's what the model said when we made it.

Nope.

Translation of you: I'm an idiot. I have no idea what I'm talking about. I prove that with every comment on any scientific subject.

BroncoBeavis
09-13-2013, 10:40 AM
Nope.

Translation of you: I'm an idiot. I have no idea what I'm talking about. I prove that with every comment on any scientific subject.

Your hero has 5 years for the ice to be gone. And not much more time for Manhattan to be a boat ramp. Enjoy that idol while you can still cling to it. :)

W*GS
09-13-2013, 10:45 AM
Your hero has 5 years for the ice to be gone. And not much more time for Manhattan to be a boat ramp. Enjoy that idol while you can still cling to it. :)

Thanks for proving me right.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
09-13-2013, 10:49 AM
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/B5OcKbJLB74?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

BroncoBeavis
09-13-2013, 10:51 AM
Thanks for proving me right.

It's ok Wagsy. You can still keep the faith into the 2020's. Even Camping still has his followers. :)

W*GS
09-13-2013, 10:53 AM
It's ok Wagsy. You can still keep the faith into the 2020's. Even Camping still has his followers. :)

And thanks once more.

W*GS
09-13-2013, 10:55 AM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/DkGEBfVXkT4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

BroncoBeavis
09-13-2013, 12:29 PM
Nope.

Translation of you: I'm an idiot. I have no idea what I'm talking about. I prove that with every comment on any scientific subject.

Every comment? How about this one, Wagsy?

There are not enough indicators for which climate change is the known and proven cause. We simply don't understand the global system well enough to state such things with near-total confidence. Yes, there are things we're observing that are reasonably consistent with what computer models that attempt to simulate climate change predict, but there is enough error in the observations and the models that your statements and their air of finality and truth simply cannot be supported. The over-the-top effects of climate change you mentioned are extremely (and I mean *extremely*) unlikely.

LOL

BroncoBeavis
09-13-2013, 12:54 PM
Originally Posted by Rohirrim
Despite W*GS dispute about what the eventual results of global warming will be (have tobacco companies accepted the idea that smoking causes cancer yet?),

Wagsy:

The science behind smoking causing cancer is far far stronger than that behind the premise that we are facing imminent demise (an "apocalypse" or "catastrophe") because of climate change. But the smear is duly noted. Pity you failed to address the major points of my critique of your somewhat hysterical post.

Wow. Just. Wow.

W*GS
09-13-2013, 12:57 PM
Every comment? How about this one, Wagsy?

Thanks for taking my comment from 2004 entirely out of context. See the original here:

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=405437&postcount=53

Typical denier intellectual dishonesty.

Nothing I wrote then is wrong now. I'm always quite careful in what I write about the science, even if in your troglodyte mind, you can't understand it.

W*GS
09-13-2013, 12:58 PM
Wagsy:



Wow. Just. Wow.

Show me where I've used the terms "apocalypse" or "catastrophe" in my comments. Or that our demise is "imminent".

You're attacking a strawman. Of course.

BroncoBeavis
09-13-2013, 01:04 PM
Show me where I've used the terms "apocalypse" or "catastrophe" in my comments. Or that our demise is "imminent".

You're attacking a strawman. Of course.

So Manhattan taking a permanent saltwater bath wouldn't be "catastrophic"?

BroncoBeavis
09-13-2013, 01:23 PM
Thanks for taking my comment from 2004 entirely out of context. See the original here:

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=405437&postcount=53

Typical denier intellectual dishonesty.

Nothing I wrote then is wrong now. I'm always quite careful in what I write about the science, even if in your troglodyte mind, you can't understand it.

No offense buddy, but I'm glad you linked to it. I think it's safe to say if you read those posts out loud to most people here and asked them to guess who said what (without telling them how long ago it was)...

Most people would think what you said back then was me and what Roh said back then was you.

Arkie
09-13-2013, 01:24 PM
NTSA.

On mismatches between models and observations (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/on-mismatches-between-models-and-observations/)

But wouldn't the mismatches be on both sides of the models? They all erred to the side of the alarmists agenda.

W*GS
09-13-2013, 01:27 PM
So Manhattan taking a permanent saltwater bath wouldn't be "catastrophic"?

Did I say it was soon going to?

BroncoBeavis
09-13-2013, 01:28 PM
But wouldn't the mismatches be on both sides of the models? They all erred to the side of the alarmists agenda.

Come on, Arkie, there is no agenda here. If science teaches us anything, it's that if you're going to err, err on the side of world-ending cataclysm and despair. :)

W*GS
09-13-2013, 01:28 PM
But wouldn't the mismatches be on both sides of the models? They all erred to the side of the alarmists agenda.

What's the "alarmists agenda"?

The CMIP3 models erred on the side of projecting too much Arctic sea ice. You don't hear deniers point that out. Why?

W*GS
09-13-2013, 01:29 PM
Come on, Arkie, there is no agenda here. If science teaches us anything, it's that if you're going to err, err on the side of world-ending cataclysm and despair.

That's your take, meathead.

W*GS
09-13-2013, 01:30 PM
No offense buddy, but I'm glad you linked to it. I think it's safe to say if you read those posts out loud to most people here and asked them to guess who said what (without telling them how long ago it was)...

Most people would think what you said back then was me and what Roh said back then was you.

Nope. Most people would think you were stupid then and are even more stupid now.

BroncoBeavis
09-13-2013, 01:37 PM
Did I say it was soon going to?

You came to Archbishop Hansen's defense when I criticized him in exactly the same way you criticized Roh back then...

Rohirrim
09-13-2013, 01:40 PM
Science makes all sorts of errors when it is constructing hypotheses and moving toward establishing facts. So what?

W*GS
09-13-2013, 01:46 PM
You came to Archbishop Hansen's defense when I criticized him in exactly the same way you criticized Roh back then...

That's your take, meathead.

W*GS
09-13-2013, 01:47 PM
Science makes all sorts of errors when it is constructing hypotheses and moving toward establishing facts. So what?

Only dogmatists like Beavis persist in their beliefs when the facts change.

BroncoBeavis
09-13-2013, 02:05 PM
Only dogmatists like Beavis persist in their beliefs when the facts change.

Says the guy clinging to his decades-old hockey stick models whilst the temperature remains relatively flat.

It's funny because I could even understand, based on evidence, going from alarmed to skeptical over the last decade. But to go from skeptical (of the doomsdaying anyway) to supportive of it over that time is beyond comprehension.

Until one sees that virtually all of Wagsy's views must've gone through some kind of intellectual meatgrinder between 2004 and 2008.

Was it the Hope and the Change that did it? Or was it something else? :)

Rohirrim
09-13-2013, 02:11 PM
Has everybody seen this one?

As the oceans warm up -- and they have -- fish are moving to cooler places. The newest study on the impact of climate change on global fisheries by University of British Columbia researchers documented fish moving toward the poles and to deeper waters.
In a study the journal Nature published today, the researchers used temperature preferences of fish and other marine species as a sort of "thermometer" to assess effects of climate change on the world's oceans between 1970 and 2006, according to the announcement.
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2013/05/fish_moving_toward_cooler_wate.html

http://media.oregonlive.com/environment_impact/other/nature.study.pdf

Oh. Did I mention that for billions of people, that disappearing seafood is their only source of protein? Move along. Nothing to see here.

houghtam
09-13-2013, 02:34 PM
I'd just like to know...what are your qualifications on the subject, Beavis, other than what Google can provide?

I know W*GS' qualifications, and they are substantial.

What are yours?

(Another dodge and deflect in 3...2...1...)

W*GS
09-13-2013, 02:38 PM
Says the guy clinging to his decades-old hockey stick models whilst the temperature remains relatively flat.

NTSA. I've explained to you and the other denier dopes the reasons why comments like the above are ignorant of the science, but you keep making them and proving that you're an idiot on the subject.

WTF is wrong with your brain?

It's funny because I could even understand, based on evidence, going from alarmed to skeptical over the last decade. But to go from skeptical (of the doomsdaying anyway) to supportive of it over that time is beyond comprehension.

I've never been a doomster or claimed our extinction was imminent or that the world was about to end. You're making up strawman bull****, again.

Likewise, if only one decade of one measure of anthropogenic climate change makes one change one's mind entirely, well, then such a person must be you, to be so stupid.

Until one sees that virtually all of Wagsy's views must've gone through some kind of intellectual meatgrinder between 2004 and 2008.

My opinions change when the facts change. What do your opinions do?

BroncoBeavis
09-13-2013, 05:26 PM
NTSA. I've explained to you and the other denier dopes the reasons why comments like the above are ignorant of the science, but you keep making them and proving that you're an idiot on the subject.

WTF is wrong with your brain?



I've never been a doomster or claimed our extinction was imminent or that the world was about to end. You're making up strawman bull****, again.

Likewise, if only one decade of one measure of anthropogenic climate change makes one change one's mind entirely, well, then such a person must be you, to be so stupid.



My opinions change when the facts change. What do your opinions do?

It's not a strawman, Wagsy. You're actively defending James "Venus Syndrome" Hansen in regards to exactly the kinds of things you say you don't agree with.

Once we come to some agreement on the hackery of Hansen et al, I think any of our other disagreements are fairly reconcilable. :)

W*GS
09-13-2013, 05:31 PM
It's not a strawman, Wagsy. You're actively defending James "Venus Syndrome" Hansen in regards to exactly the kinds of things you say you don't agree with.

What's your obsession with Hansen? Do you think that if you take a few of his comments out of context and attempt to show that they're wrong, then there's no such thing as AGW?

Once we come to some agreement on the hackery of Hansen et al, I think any of our other disagreements are fairly reconcilable. :)

Hansen isn't a hack. You're in no position to judge him.

BroncoBeavis
09-14-2013, 06:13 PM
Hansen isn't a hack. You're in no position to judge him.

I am when he starts to dabble in politics and/or economics.

W*GS
09-14-2013, 06:14 PM
I am when he starts to dabble in politics and/or economics.

Once again, scientists should just STFU outside of their science, right? As citizens, they lose their 1st Amendment rights.

BroncoBeavis
09-14-2013, 06:21 PM
Once again, scientists should just STFU outside of their science, right? As citizens, they lose their 1st Amendment rights.

So non-scientists should just STFU about topics of science. But when climate scientists pontificate on economics and politics, we should bow in deference?

That seems.... inconsistent.

W*GS
09-14-2013, 07:13 PM
So non-scientists should just STFU about topics of science. But when climate scientists pontificate on economics and politics, we should bow in deference?

If you want to discuss science, bring it. So far, I've seen nothing but parrotage of denier blogosphere BS.

Should Hansen STFU about anything other than science? Or, do his political views somehow make his science suspect? Please, go on...

PS - You do realize that you're hopelessly out of your league on this subject with me...

BroncoBeavis
09-14-2013, 10:28 PM
If you want to discuss science, bring it. So far, I've seen nothing but parrotage of denier blogosphere BS.

Should Hansen STFU about anything other than science? Or, do his political views somehow make his science suspect? Please, go on...

PS - You do realize that you're hopelessly out of your league on this subject with me...

Wagsy, do you think Oil Company execs should be arrested and tried for high crimes against Gaia?

houghtam
09-14-2013, 10:29 PM
Wagsy, do you think Oil Company execs should be arrested and tried for high crimes against Gaia?

PIKEW!

Deflection.

I see your truuuuuuuue cooooloooooors...

houghtam
09-14-2013, 10:30 PM
What's your educational background, poooosaaaaaaay?

houghtam
09-14-2013, 10:50 PM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/0RKUfTb88Rs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

W*GS
09-15-2013, 07:32 AM
Beavis' quiver is out of arrows.

barryr
09-15-2013, 10:10 AM
I'd just like to know...what are your qualifications on the subject, Beavis, other than what Google can provide?

I know W*GS' qualifications, and they are substantial.

What are yours?

(Another dodge and deflect in 3...2...1...)

Oh yeah, you really know his true qualifications. "An anonymous guy posted he's an expert, so it has to be true." Good stuff. Because he posts what you want to believe, it must be true and easy to go along with an "expert" who, by the way, posts in a politics forum that is from a Broncos website, where his Broncos posts are rare if even exist and from a guy who pulled a 180 since 2009. Yes, it is so believable LOL

W*GS
09-15-2013, 10:17 AM
Oh yeah, you really know his true qualifications. "An anonymous guy posted he's an expert, so it has to be true." Good stuff. Because he posts what you want to believe, it must be true and easy to go along with an "expert" who, by the way, posts in a politics forum that is from a Broncos website, where his Broncos posts are rare if even exist and from a guy who pulled a 180 since 2009. Yes, it is so believable LOL

I love seeing you make an ass of yourself.

BroncoBeavis
09-15-2013, 10:37 AM
Oh yeah, you really know his true qualifications. "An anonymous guy posted he's an expert, so it has to be true." Good stuff. Because he posts what you want to believe, it must be true and easy to go along with an "expert" who, by the way, posts in a politics forum that is from a Broncos website, where his Broncos posts are rare if even exist and from a guy who pulled a 180 since 2009. Yes, it is so believable LOL

Not even getting into Hough making an argument that would demand his silence in 95% of the threads he pontificates in ad infinitum. LOL

But you're right. Nothing is better than the appeal to authority fallacy extended all the way to the anonymous. :)

houghtam
09-15-2013, 12:10 PM
Not even getting into Hough making an argument that would demand his silence in 95% of the threads he pontificates in ad infinitum. LOL

But you're right. Nothing is better than the appeal to authority fallacy extended all the way to the anonymous. :)

LOL

PIKEW!

Requiem
09-15-2013, 02:59 PM
Beavis is Howard the Duck.

nyuk nyuk
09-15-2013, 06:06 PM
Beavis is Howard the Duck.

My love! :wiggle: