- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 11,430
- Reaction score
- 2,282
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Another issue is whether it is appropriate to use quantitative subjective probabilities when
statements are qualitative in nature or imprecisely stated. Many of the 71 conclusions in the
“Current Knowledge about Future Impacts” section of the Working Group II Summary for
Policy Makers are imprecise statements made without reference to the time period under
consideration or to a climate scenario under which the conclusions would be true. Consider, for
example, the statement:
Prepublication Copy—Subject to Further Editorial Revision
34
In Central and Eastern Europe, summer precipitation is projected to decrease, causing higher water
stress. Health risks due to heatwaves are projected to increase. Forest productivity is expected to
decline and the frequency of peatland fires to increase. (High confidence; IPCC, 2007b, p. 14)
There is no indication about when these events are expected to occur or under what conditions.
What changes in climate would give rise to these results? What is assumed about adaptation? It
could be argued that, given the imprecision of the statement, it has an 80 percent chance of being
true under some set of circumstances.
In the Committee’s view, assigning probabilities to imprecise statements is not an appropriate
way to characterize uncertainty. If the confidence scale is used in this way, conclusions will
likely be stated so vaguely as to make them impossible to refute, and therefore statements of
“very high confidence” will have little substantive value.11 More importantly, the use of
probabilities to characterize uncertainty is most appropriate when applied to empirical quantities
(Morgan et al., 2009). The following statement may be true but should not be assigned a
probability of occurrence:
Nearly all European regions are anticipated to be negatively affected by some future impacts of
climate change, and these will pose challenges to many economic sectors. (Very high confidence;
IPCC, 2007b, p. 14)
It's nine years...and you people use the ten years preceding 1998 to establish your trend. So you can't reject the subsequent nine years that reverse that trend.
It's nine years...and you people use the ten years preceding 1998 to establish your trend. So you can't reject the subsequent nine years that reverse that trend.
If you want it both ways, you have to pay extra.
Yeah, that's why it's something like the second coldest summer ever in Los Angeles, and why NASA is claiming a cooler globe this year. Now, that's the fact presented. Hence, claiming that the year is the hottest ever is simple psychological denial of the cited fact.
There's a reason people use centuries to identify climate trends.
The posted temperature plots say otherwise. They go up, they go down, and oh, by the way, 1998 was not the hottest year on record, one of the Dust Bowl Years from the '30's claims that distinction.
That's good news.
Lolz..
Survey says: You fail.
Oo! Look!
My plot shows that the temperature in the 1800's was going DOWN, and your NASA GISS plot was selectively edited to show only an increasing trend, and it doesn't show the decrease in the last decade.
The old saying is that figures don't lie, but since goverment climatologists are liars, they do figure.
Uhh. The trend for every single one of the past several decades is UPWARDS. So, you're incorrect.
LA covers about .00001% of the world's surface area,
so nice anecdote there.
Did you happen to look at the trend for this century? It isn't down!
See all those little lines going DOWN at the right end of the NASA GISS curves?
The trend for the last decade is down.
Did you happen to look at the trend for the last millenium? It's down.
Did you happen to look at the trend for the last five millenia?
Isn't that what you're doing now?So you want to express your chauvinism by picking which era's are your baseline.
The real world doesn't care.
Right at the end. You mean like over a 2-ish year period? Say, around 2008? That's your "decade?"
No.
I'm going to pick as my baseline the hottest year in the '30's. By that definition, the planet's been cooling off.
For some STRANGE reason, the hoaxers picked the 1950's as their baseline, which gave them a warming trend without the messy fact that it's been cooling since the hottest year of the century.
Or, then again, maybe I'll pick the hottest year of the Medieval Warm period. You know, the era the IPCC had to remove from it's charts to make it's hoaxing Hockey Stick look impressive.
You want to pick a year that wasn't the hottest and freak out over it? Be my guest.
I've already demonstrated that the Hoaxers claim of "warming" and it's message of PANIC are bogus when the bigger picture is seen.
No, seriously, Scarecrow. I'm baffled.
Temperature was going down in the 1800s. Then it started going up. Around the time we started spitting out more CO2.
Also, the last decade? Yeah, warmest on record.
No.
I'm going to pick as my baseline the hottest year in the '30's. By that definition, the planet's been cooling off.
For some STRANGE reason, the hoaxers picked the 1950's as their baseline, which gave them a warming trend without the messy fact that it's been cooling since the hottest year of the century.
Or, then again, maybe I'll pick the hottest year of the Medieval Warm period. You know, the era the IPCC had to remove from it's charts to make it's hoaxing Hockey Stick look impressive.
You want to pick a year that wasn't the hottest and freak out over it? Be my guest.
I've already demonstrated that the Hoaxers claim of "warming" and it's message of PANIC are bogus when the bigger picture is seen.
Can't we all just agree that we need to be careful with the environment?
of course, we just can't regulate anything. we need to trust the corporations.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?