Headlines that are misleading

[Surface Detail]

Except that the numbers do not add up, the difference between the 1901 -1960 baseline and the 1986- 2005 baseline is .5 C,
so that would move the IPCC's high edge number ( 3.7 ± 0.7) from 4.4 to 4.9°C,
If 4.9°C if converted to °F it comes out to 8.9°F, the assessment and the graph showed the high end as 11°F.

You have used the standard deviation (± 0.7) to calculate the high edge number, while the graphs show the 5 to 95% range. The limits of this range are the numbers in brackets; the upper limit in this case being 4.8°C (rather than 4.4°C). Note also that the figures in the table are for 2081-2100 rather then spot on 2100.

 

[longview]

Correcting the baseline to....what?

Use any data set you like, The IPCC's graph used 1986 to 2005, and the national climate assessment used 1901 to 1960,
Do you not read this stuff?

 

[longview]

You have used the standard deviation (± 0.7) to calculate the high edge number, while the graphs show the 5 to 95% range. The limits of this range are the numbers in brackets; the upper limit in this case being 4.8°C (rather than 4.4°C). Note also that the figures in the table are for 2081-2100 rather then spot on 2100.

So tell me what 4.8°C is in degrees F?, it sure looks like 8.64 °F to me.
How does an upper limit of even 9°F become 11°F?

 

[Surface Detail]

So tell me what 4.8°C is in degrees F?, it sure looks like 8.64 °F to me.
How does an upper limit of even 9°F become 11°F?

Now you forgot to account for the baseline difference.

 

[Threegoofs]

Use any data set you like, The IPCC's graph used 1986 to 2005, and the national climate assessment used 1901 to 1960,
Do you not read this stuff?

I didnt see the NCA baseline.

Not sure how you were able to convert - do you know what the differences in the baselines are in absolute terms?

I guess you could use any data set you’d like, but then you wont get the answer of what dataset the NCA used...

But I’m guessing you’re not interested in the truth anyway, you just want to insist that the NCA is wrong.

 

[longview]

Now you forgot to account for the baseline difference.

No I did not the baseline difference between 1901 to 1960 vs 1986 to 2005 is ~.5 °C according to Hadcrut4,
it may be slightly different on other data sets, but still not enough to move the upper limit to 11°F.

 

[longview]

I didnt see the NCA baseline.

Not sure how you were able to convert - do you know what the differences in the baselines are in absolute terms?

I guess you could use any data set you’d like, but then you wont get the answer of what dataset the NCA used...

But I’m guessing you’re not interested in the truth anyway, you just want to insist that the NCA is wrong.

They claimed a baseline of 1901 to 1960, vs 1986 to 2005, choose any data set you want, and compare.

 

[Surface Detail]

No I did not the baseline difference between 1901 to 1960 vs 1986 to 2005 is ~.5 °C according to Hadcrut4,
it may be slightly different on other data sets, but still not enough to move the upper limit to 11°F.

You forgot to add that ~.5°C to the 4.8°C 95% upper limit.

 

[longview]

You forgot to add that ~.5°C to the 4.8°C 95% upper limit.

This is really getting irrelevant, but even if you take the upper limit of the 5 to 95% range and add the baseline offset,
it still is only about 9.54°F not 11°F.
and this is all based on RCP 8.5 which is almost impossible.
I am sorry, but it is difficult to get worked up over unlikely hypothetical futures.
The National Climate Assessment, is trying to promote action, based on a very unlikely possibility.
Even the pro AGW scientist have reduced ECS for 2XCO2 to a mid range of 2.8 C with a range of 2.2–3.4C.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25450
As the estimates get lower, the high end alarmist range drop off the possible futures.

 

[Jack Hays]

This is really getting irrelevant, but even if you take the upper limit of the 5 to 95% range and add the baseline offset,
it still is only about 9.54°F not 11°F.
and this is all based on RCP 8.5 which is almost impossible.
I am sorry, but it is difficult to get worked up over unlikely hypothetical futures.
The National Climate Assessment, is trying to promote action, based on a very unlikely possibility.
Even the pro AGW scientist have reduced ECS for 2XCO2 to a mid range of 2.8 C with a range of 2.2–3.4C.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25450
As the estimates get lower, the high end alarmist range drop off the possible futures.

When scientists become advocates, advocacy is presented as science.

 

[Surface Detail]

This is really getting irrelevant, but even if you take the upper limit of the 5 to 95% range and add the baseline offset,
it still is only about 9.54°F not 11°F.
and this is all based on RCP 8.5 which is almost impossible.
I am sorry, but it is difficult to get worked up over unlikely hypothetical futures.
The National Climate Assessment, is trying to promote action, based on a very unlikely possibility.
Even the pro AGW scientist have reduced ECS for 2XCO2 to a mid range of 2.8 C with a range of 2.2–3.4C.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25450
As the estimates get lower, the high end alarmist range drop off the possible futures.

Finally, you forgot that the table gives a figure for 2081 - 2100, not 2100.

It would be nice if you and LoT would admit that you were mistaken in accusing the National Climate Assessment of publishing mistakes. You won't though, will you? You'll leave that steaming pile and run off down another rabbit hole.

 

[Sabre]

The video showing how the statues "walked" was fascinating - I actually watched that part several times - :lol: marveling that the creators of the statues had figured out a way to move them forward inches at a time by using ropes attached to opposite sides of the statues with teams of men taking turns pulling the ropes to keep the statues moving, since they didn't have logs to roll them on! Considering that most of these solid stone statues are 35 or more feet high and weigh hundreds of pounds each, I salute their ingenuity! :applaud

The only video I have seen is one where they are moving one of their own creation, with modern ropes, which mimics the upper torso Moai such as these:



These are an average of 13' tall and weigh 14 tons.

The 35' ones are the full body Moai that are all over the island. They appear as heads only because the volcano eruptions are said to have buried the bodies. Such as these:



This is the reality:





They weigh from 30 to 40 tons, I highly doubt they hauled them upslope, walking them with rope. No I do not know how it was done and seeing as how there is no written record no one knows for sure, there are thousands of them, just one of the many mysteries of Easter Island.

 

[Lord of Planar]

It's a replot of the same data using degrees °F instead of °C (presumably for an American audience) and a baseline corresponding to the 20th century average (because this period is more familiar to more people). I'd have thought it was obvious, even to a layman, that using different units and baseline has no effect on the shape of the graph.

It doesn't matter. The IPCC is dead wrong in this case, worse than normal. It has added error ranges not shown. You first have the error range of the modeling for radiant flux. It has no added error margin for the sensitivity of the various variables involved.

It as very arrogant and ignorant to claim, but then... IPCC... or should I say... iCCCP

 

[Lord of Planar]

The only video I have seen is one where they are moving one of their own creation, with modern ropes, which mimics the upper torso Moai such as these:

View attachment 67236142

These are an average of 13' tall and weigh 14 tons.

The 35' ones are the full body Moai that are all over the island. They appear as heads only because the volcano eruptions are said to have buried the bodies. Such as these:

View attachment 67236143

This is the reality:

View attachment 67236145

View attachment 67236146

They weigh from 30 to 40 tons, I highly doubt they hauled them upslope, walking them with rope. No I do not know how it was done and seeing as how there is no written record no one knows for sure, there are thousands of them, just one of the many mysteries of Easter Island.

What is there if we dig deeper?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Thankfully the IPCC provides table 12.2 on the next page.
View attachment 67236121
They have RCP8.5 to 2100 in degrees C listed as 3.7 °C± 0.7 °C,
So 3 to 4.4 C for the range!
In degrees F, that is 5.4°F to 7.92°F, with the center at 6.66 °F.
Tell me again how the national climate assessment got a center warming of 8.5°F?

You know that answer.

It's called confirmation bias!

 

[Sabre]

What is there if we dig deeper?

One of the things I have read is that they are standing on a stone slab, haven't seen any pictures though.

 

[longview]

Yet more misleading headlines.
https://www.upi.com/Science_News/20...rastructure-new-research-shows/2851531855448/

Thousands of miles of fiber optic cable are laid beneath several major coastal cities. Large swaths of this
vital communications infrastructure could be underwater in less than 15 years, researchers warn.

This with an overlay of what are presumed to be cable runs in lower Manhattan.
Here is the problem with the statement.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8518750
The sea level in Manhattan has been falling slightly for the last 8 years,
The annual average at Battery Park fell 35 mm between 2010 and 2017.
This is a negative 5 mm per year.

 

[Jack Hays]

[FONT=&quot]Climate News[/FONT]
[h=1]Remember when we were told that Capetown SA’s water crisis was due to climate change? Never mind.[/h][FONT=&quot]Back on March 1st, 2018 we were told this: Cape Town’s water crisis shows the reality for cities on the front line of climate change Today, a scant few months later, thanks to NASA’s Earth Observatory, we hear: Cape Town’s Reservoirs Rebound After nearly running dry six months ago, Cape Town’s reservoirs have risen dramatically. Rain has poured down on southern…
[/FONT]

 

[Threegoofs]

[FONT=&quot]Climate News[/FONT]
[h=1]Remember when we were told that Capetown SA’s water crisis was due to climate change? Never mind.[/h][FONT=&quot]Back on March 1st, 2018 we were told this: Cape Town’s water crisis shows the reality for cities on the front line of climate change Today, a scant few months later, thanks to NASA’s Earth Observatory, we hear: Cape Town’s Reservoirs Rebound After nearly running dry six months ago, Cape Town’s reservoirs have risen dramatically. Rain has poured down on southern…
[/FONT]

Apparently, the idiot author doesn’t realize that narrowly averting a crisis does not mean a real underlying problem doesn’t exist.

 

[Jack Hays]

Apparently, the idiot author doesn’t realize that narrowly averting a crisis does not mean a real underlying problem doesn’t exist.

Another fake climate change "crisis."

 

[Jack Hays]

[FONT=&quot]Alarmism / AMO[/FONT]
[h=1]Study: Atlantic Ocean circulation is not collapsing – but the press release adds climate porn[/h][FONT=&quot]From the University of Washington – Hannah Hickey where the original headline in the press release says “Atlantic Ocean circulation is not collapsing – but as it shifts gears, global warming will reaccelerate“. Problem is, the researcher doesn’t know and says: “We have about one cycle of observations at depth, so we do not know…
[/FONT]

 

[Lord of Planar]

[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/18/study-atlantic-ocean-circulation-is-not-collapsing-but-the-press-release-adds-climate-porn/"]

[/URL]Alarmism / AMO[/FONT]
[h=1]Study: Atlantic Ocean circulation is not collapsing – but the press release adds climate porn[/h][FONT="]From the University of Washington – Hannah Hickey where the original headline in the press release says “Atlantic Ocean circulation is not collapsing – but as it shifts gears, global warming will reaccelerate“. Problem is, the researcher doesn’t know and says: “We have about one cycle of observations at depth, so we do not know…
[/FONT]

I wonder if any of those indoctrinated idiots ever tried doing the math, of how much energy it would take to slow down that much mass to a near stop?

 

[Tim the plumber]

I wonder if any of those indoctrinated idiots ever tried doing the math, of how much energy it would take to slow down that much mass to a near stop?

Even better compare the hydro pressure difference between the effect of a slightly less saline sea vs the pressure from 4,000km of surface ocean with a strong wind blowing over it.

 

[Threegoofs]

Even better compare the hydro pressure difference between the effect of a slightly less saline sea vs the pressure from 4,000km of surface ocean with a strong wind blowing over it.

Oh, the injustice of them getting the privilege for writing papers and having them published in Nature while brilliant plumbers like yourself have to contain your paradigm shattering ideas to one sentence posts on DP.

If only these highly trained scientists who vet their work through even more highly trained scientists and then defend it on public forums in person taking questions from other highly trained scientists knew what they were talking about!

 

[Tim the plumber]

Oh, the injustice of them getting the privilege for writing papers and having them published in Nature while brilliant plumbers like yourself have to contain your paradigm shattering ideas to one sentence posts on DP.

If only these highly trained scientists who vet their work through even more highly trained scientists and then defend it on public forums in person taking questions from other highly trained scientists knew what they were talking about!

Demonstartions of facts involving numbers are never going to work on you. There is no point explaining it.