Yes, and the greater the number of climatology models you run, the greater the likelihood that one will be "right" (i.e. consistent with observations) simply due to chance.Even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day. Move the goalposts far enough apart and anything can be made to fit
Yes, and the greater the number of climatology models you run, the greater the likelihood that one will be "right" (i.e. consistent with observations) simply due to chance.
whats to debate? we are discussing the liberal agenda of it... "weather changes"... whats to debate?
Well perhaps you could do it elsewhere and leave people to actually debate the content of the OP instead :roll:
My advise to you is put people on ignore if your going to whine about them openly..
Latest Global Temps « Roy Spencer, PhD
We know phases of warming or cooling often last for many centuries. This is clearly indicated by the paleoclimatic record. The surface record is patchy unreliable and of too short a duration to be making determinations about anything. The satellite record is accurate but even more meaningless due to its much shorter duration.
Here is why they are worthless and why they will always fail
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5c9415b970b-pi
lmfao, wow.
yeah, no doubt. And I should say that I am not smart enough to know, or even understand fully what goes into the AGW debate, but I do know that once they injected a political goal, ie; social justice, and wealth redistribution into the argument, they completely took away from any real science....Now it is what it is, a scam.
lmfao, wow.
whats wow? typos that nobody cares about?.
those weren't "typos"
thsi si a tpyo (multiple actually)
That's actually not bad at all, and his push back against the more extreme global warming models is important. Though he misses some obvious points.
First, even his data shows an increase in temperature that is very much on par with the median climate models.
Second, arguing that this is an unexplained natural warming trend misses the obvious issue that it is just as likely that we're in an unexplained natural cooling trend. That means that it is essentially equally likely that the more extreme global warming predictions are right, but we're encountering a natural cooling cycle.
Third, this is by far the best explanation for the data we've seen.
And finally, limiting yourself to only reading stuff which supports your point of view means that you'll always agree with yourself.
actually advise is spelled correctly...
LMFAO!!!!!
bother me one more time and I will report you..id take my ADVISE
those weren't "typos"
thsi si a tpyo (multiple actually)
That's actually not bad at all, and his push back against the more extreme global warming models is important. Though he misses some obvious points.
First, even his data shows an increase in temperature that is very much on par with the median climate models.
Second, arguing that this is an unexplained natural warming trend misses the obvious issue that it is just as likely that we're in an unexplained natural cooling trend. That means that it is essentially equally likely that the more extreme global warming predictions are right, but we're encountering a natural cooling cycle.
Third, this is by far the best explanation for the data we've seen.
And finally, limiting yourself to only reading stuff which supports your point of view means that you'll always agree with yourself.
case in point, you claimed it was a typo
advise: verb
advice: noun
phrase "My advise is"
wrong.
Yes, probably too simple to be of much use.This pretty simple stuff.
global temperature = T(year) + [T] where T(year) is the global trend and [T] is a stochastic process overlayed on top.
Then why in the world would your approach be to fit a straight line equation with some random variation "overlayed on top"?The goal is to find some function of temperature per year which best explains the data.
I see, so your idea of statistically significant is not whether or not the model predicts the actual data, but whether or not there is any sort of positive correlation between temperature and year. Um, lol?Anyone taking a look at that dataset would immediately begin investigating a linearly increasing function for global temperature. This is clearly a better explanation than a steady state system as the probability for a random process to show such clear trendlines is borderline impossible.
How the climate reacts to the initial warming is the main area where most skeptics have problems with the IPCC and others. These reactions are called “feedbacks”. Positive ones amplify any temperature change (warming or cooling from any cause, not just from CO2). Negative ones diminish a change. There are general agreements on the equations used to define the feedback strengths and how they are combined into one net temperature change multiplier that can be either greater or less than one. The major disagreements are the magnitudes of the feedback values and for clouds, even if it is positive or negative. The final IPCC warming estimates for doubling CO2 range from 1.5 to 4.5 C. The skeptics have no common voice, but their values range from about 0.5 to 1.2 C, a significant reduction. IPCC also uses a 1% annual growth of the CO2 content in the atmosphere, while data shows only about 0.55%. This increases CO2 doubling time from about 70 years to 140.
We believe the complex computer models overestimation of warming is mostly based on a combinations of three factors: overestimating positive water vapor feedback, underestimating negative feedback from increased sea surface evaporation and treating cloud feedback as positive feedback while it is very likely negative. ...
A skeptics summary
About 1 C warming in the next 140 years does not seem to be a problem. (It will actually take longer because the ocean heat storage will delay the warming). Furthermore, both simple models and data show that most of the warming will be in winter nights in the colder latitudes. Less water vapor here reduces its competition with CO2. An example is in Minneapolis, Minnesota at 45 degrees latitude. About half of July record highs were set in the 1930s, with only 3 since 2000. However 80% of the record January lows were from 1875 to 1950. This winter warming is a benefit. And what makes people think the climate around 1900 represents the ideal? In 2014 we just saw a very cold winter, typical of that era. Finally, warmer temperatures increase evaporation and precipitation and since CO2 is a plant food, food crop production will increase, contrary to some other estimates. And any climate model that estimates a small, slowly increasing temperature will “disrupt” the climate should be looked at with great skepticism. ...
So because some ideologues have their own agenda, you ignore what scientists are reporting?
Yes, probably too simple to be of much use.
Then why in the world would your approach be to fit a straight line equation with some random variation "overlayed on top"?
I see, so your idea of statistically significant is not whether or not the model predicts the actual data, but whether or not there is any sort of positive correlation between temperature and year. Um, lol?
This is common. Misrepresent what the study says and then ignore what it really says.That is absolutely and entirely not what the study says. What it says is that the most extreme models are probably not accurate and more moderate models likely, which is not what you would call unexpected. It does not create any doubt about man made effects on climate change. Here is the actual study: Comparing the model-simulated global warming signal to observations using empirical estimates of unforced noise : Scientific Reports : Nature Publishing Group
So because some ideologues have their own agenda, you ignore what scientists are reporting?
Nothing that is occurring with the climate is inconsistent with normal natural variability either. We have had many modest warming phases like this one since the last ice age. Today's is nothing special compared to some
C02 is rising and solar output is falling, yet the trend is still rising temps and that is inconsistent with what we've seen in the past.
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?