The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community

The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/index.php)
-   War, Religion and Politics Thread (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=112061)

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun 09-12-2013 09:12 PM

Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years
 
http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate...20estimate.pdf

Quote:

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-con...eems-legit.jpg

W*GS 09-13-2013 10:08 AM

NTSA.

On mismatches between models and observations

09-13-2013 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W*GS (Post 3913906)

Money line:

Quote:

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis (Post 3913912)
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.

09-13-2013 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W*GS (Post 3913916)
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

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis (Post 3913924)
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>

09-13-2013 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W*GS (Post 3913926)
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

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis (Post 3913934)
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>

09-13-2013 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W*GS (Post 3913916)
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?

Quote:

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

09-13-2013 12:54 PM

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis (Post 3913965)
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/showpos...7&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

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis (Post 3913979)
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.

09-13-2013 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W*GS (Post 3913982)
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"?

09-13-2013 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W*GS (Post 3913981)
Thanks for taking my comment from 2004 entirely out of context. See the original here:

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpos...7&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

Quote:

Originally Posted by W*GS (Post 3913906)

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis (Post 3913988)
So Manhattan taking a permanent saltwater bath wouldn't be "catastrophic"?

Did I say it was soon going to?

09-13-2013 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arkie (Post 3913995)
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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arkie (Post 3913995)
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

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis (Post 3913997)
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

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis (Post 3913994)
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.

09-13-2013 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W*GS (Post 3913996)
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?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:27 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.