• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Global warming discussion III

Status
Not open for further replies.
SST is a minor part of AGW Haig - you've been shown that numerous times.

When will you deal with the 900 lb gorilla

heat_content2000m.jpg


that just burped a whole lot of heat back to the surface...

SSTA-April-17-2015.png


can you read anomaly levels in C???

monster-kelvin-wave-redux.gif
 
Last edited:
First and foremost, neither climate models not the IPCC make predictions, they make projections of the data and trends based upon current and past analyses of observed data.

After this point is understood, we can discuss the accuracy and legitimacy of the portrayal presented in the Michael's illustration.


Sure, but we'll wait a long time for that point to be understood. ;)

‘Prediction’ or ‘projection’? The nomenclature of climate science.
In conclusion, this brief analysis indicates that a number of respondents express some confusion concerning the terminology, with approximately 29% of the sample associating probable with projections and approximately 20% of respondents associating possible with prediction.

Furthermore, about 15% of the sample of people working in climate science who accept and recognize the definitions according to the IPCC, understand models to produce predictions.




In the meantime reality doesn't match the models !

When Will Climate Scientists Say They Were Wrong?


 
Last edited:
SST is a minor part of AGW Haig - you've been shown that numerous times.

When will you deal with the 900 lb gorilla

His latest graph doesn't even deal with SSTs, its a cherry-picked collection of observations from a couple of balloon studies and a couple of carefully selected and largely faulty satellite studies trying to compare atmospheric temps with surface temp projections from a small series of a particular set of Coupled Model Intercomparison Project - phase 5 (CMIP5) runs.
 
When will you deal with the 900 lb gorilla


I have been :p

"If natural cooling from things like a quiet sun and cooling Atlantic results in a global net cooling that subsumes the current El Nino, then I think you will begin to see defectors from the GW camp. There appears to be more than a few who are counting on El Nino, a naturally occuring warming anomaly, to increase global temps, so they can claim AGW has resumed.

If that doesn’t happen, then it is strong evidence that we will see cooling after the El Nino effects are gone. This may be an interesting year."

h/tip to Jtom
 
Sure, but we'll wait a long time for that point to be understood. ;)

‘Prediction’ or ‘projection’? The nomenclature of climate science.

And thusly, you demonstrate that the problem you have reading and understanding science papers doesn't have to do only with the understanding of science, but apparently extends to a problem with understanding plain English.

from your link:
Abstract

A survey among climate scientists is used to examine the terminology concerning two key concepts in climate science, namely “predictions” and “projections”, as used among climate scientists. The survey data suggests that the IPCC terminology is not adopted, or only loosely adopted, by a significant minority of scientists. Approximately 29% of the sample associate probable developments with projections and approximately 20% of respondents associate possible developments with predictions.

Let me see if I can clarify this for you. According to the study you cited when the polled climate scientists encounter the term "projections" in scientific literature 29% of them associate this term with "probable developments" and when the polled climate scientists encounter the term "prediction" 20% of them associate this term with "possible developments." IOW, 71% of these scientists more or less accurately identify and use the term "projection" and 80% of these scientists (mol) accurately identify and use the term "prediction." I thought it was apparent that the despite the case that the vast majority of scientists use the correct technical language to describe the science, when it come to communicating their understandings to a population that seems to largely hold issues of learning in disregard, there is much work to be done.

The paper itself explains all of this beautifully if you had only bothered to read for comprehension the entire paper instead of trying to cherry-pick statements out of the abstract that you misunderstood to be supportive of your misunderstandings.

The IPCC provides the following operational definitions for the climate sciences: ‘A projection is a potential future evolution of a quantity or set of quantities.’ and ‘A climate prediction or climate forecast is the result of an attempt to produce an estimate of the actual evolution of the climate in the future, for example, at seasonal, interannual, or long-term time scales.’ The IPCC documents continues ‘Climate projections are distinguished from climate predictions in order to emphasize that climate projections depend upon the emission/concentration/radiative forcing scenario used, which are based on assumptions concerning, for example, future socioeconomic and technological developments that may or may not be realised’...]


In the meantime reality doesn't match the models !

Don't you mean to say: "the illustration compares apples and oranges and neither accurately represents either the apples or the oranges"? There is no "reality" presented in the graph you post. Which is one of the reasons it is foolish to try and learn (or discuss) science from a hyperpartisan political advocacy blog rather than from legitimate mainstream science sources.
 
Last edited:
I have been :p

"If natural cooling from things like a quiet sun and cooling Atlantic results in a global net cooling that subsumes the current El Nino, then I think you will begin to see defectors from the GW camp. There appears to be more than a few who are counting on El Nino, a naturally occuring warming anomaly, to increase global temps, so they can claim AGW has resumed.

If that doesn’t happen, then it is strong evidence that we will see cooling after the El Nino effects are gone. This may be an interesting year."

h/tip to Jtom

This isn't just an issue of misunderstanding science papers, you evidently can't even follow the plain English discussions going on in this thread. No one here, that I have read, has stated anything like what you are portraying in this post of yours.
 
This isn't just an issue of misunderstanding science papers, you evidently can't even follow the plain English discussions going on in this thread. No one here, that I have read, has stated anything like what you are portraying in this post of yours.


Seems there is a lot of misunderstanding Trakar :D

Climate scientists don't know their “predictions” from their “projections” :p

A survey among climate scientists
conclusion said:
In conclusion, this brief analysis indicates that a number of respondents express some confusion concerning the terminology, with approximately 29% of the sample associating probable with projections and approximately 20% of respondents associating possible with prediction.

Furthermore, about 15% of the sample of people working in climate science who accept and recognize the definitions according to the IPCC, understand models to produce predictions.


Don't you get it ?

Just read that last sentence of the conclusion again and you may realise it's saying 85% of climate scientists don't know their “predictions” from their “projections” with only 15% who DO understand :eek:

If you haven't read this HERE on this thread before you haven't been paying attention :p

 
Last edited:
Seems there is a lot of misunderstanding Trakar :D

Indeed, and you are silly enough to again quote and misinterpret plainly written English.


A survey among climate scientists

Don't you get it ?

Just read that last sentence of the conclusion again and you may realise it's saying 85% of climate scientists don't know their “predictions” from their “projections” with only 15% who DO understand :eek:

what you quoted supports and confirms the explanation I gave you.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this brief analysis indicates that a number of respondents express some confusion concerning the terminology, with approximately 29% of the sample associating probable with projections

Which is the opposite of the IPCC definition. So 29% got this wrong and 71% got the definition correct. Projections are possible, based upon a number of contingent factors and circumstances.

and approximately 20% of respondents associating possible
with prediction.

which is the opposite of what a "prediction." So 80% got "prediction" correct.

Furthermore, about 15% of the sample of people working in climate science who accept and recognize the definitions according to the IPCC, understand models to produce predictions.

Whereas (according to the IPCC statement listed in previous post) the fact is that the vast majority of models produce projections based upon the parameters and conditions under which the models are forced which means that 85% of the polled scientists got this correct and 15% got it wrong.

Again, your problem appears to be English/Reading comprehension related more than actual science rejection, but it could be a Confirmational Bias issue.

Confirmation bias, also called myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, or recall information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1][1] It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people's conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.

Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in political and organizational contexts
refer -1

Refer - 2 http://skepdic.com/confirmbias.html

Refer - 3 http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~maccoun/ar_bias.html
 
Indeed, and you are silly enough to again quote and misinterpret plainly written English.


You do realise, don't you, that I didn't write that paper and that you brought this Prediction or Projection issue up on here ? “Prediction” or “projection”? The nomenclature of climate science :p

This is a claim that you are sure to agree with ...

Over 95% of Climate Models Agree : The Observations Must Be Wrong
This is important, because it strikes at the heart of the claim that climate models can detect human influence on climate change. If climate models cannot model climate, if the models cannot be reconciled with observations, how can the models possibly be useful for attributing the causes climate change? If scientists defending the models claim the discrepancy is because of random fluctuations in the climate, which have pushed the models to the brink of falsification, doesn’t this demonstrate that, at the very least, the models very likely underestimate the amount of randomness in the climate? Is it possible that the entire 20th century warming might be one large random fluctuation?
 
You do realise, don't you, that I didn't write that paper and that you brought this Prediction or Projection issue up on here ? “Prediction” or “projection”? The nomenclature of climate science

you made assertions that were not supported by the references you provided to support those assertions. the failure to support is on you, not those who successfully demonstrate why you have still failed to support your assertions. Own it.




it has been said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again (thinking that a hyperpartisan political blogsite will teach you good science) and expecting different results (that those with science comprehension will ignore the actual facts and embrace the pseudoscience cracked-pottery that source spews). That said I have laid out compelling evidences supporting my statements with respect to this issue, and the requirement of a mechanism of causality has been explained. Until this mechanism has been provided and explained, there really isn't any reason to explore the topic any longer.
 
Last edited:
382365568cd8dda3c0.jpg


heat_content2000m.jpg


Oddly similar slopes between models and actual ocean heat Haig even if your is laughably grade 2 quality.

As ever - you miss or more likely ignore the reality

GW_Components_500.jpg


It's getting warmer
We're responsible
The consequences are arriving....
 
Words fail.....some regions 12 C above normal ....in a very fire prone area

dipole-anomaly-nasa.jpg


That we are riding into next week.....difficult trying to figure out what wear when Eagle Alaska hit 91 F last week !!!!!!
 
Oddly similar slopes between models and actual ocean heat Haig even if your is laughably grade 2 quality.

As ever - you miss or more likely ignore the reality

[qimg]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-MEWi43_Ifv0/VMLhrq6rhbI/AAAAAAAALhA/D1tWFnlfrQs/s500/GW_Components_500.jpg[/qimg]

It's getting warmer
We're responsible
The consequences are arriving....


Nope, ever wonder why the oceans should start eating the "missing heat" in the 21st century but not so much in the 20th century ?

Are the deep oceans cooling?

Why the IPCC exaggerates greenhouse warming of the oceans by at least 2.5 times

Trenberth debunks himself: The oceans didn't eat the global warming 'missing heat'
 
:rolleyes:What missing heat is that??.....seems it's not missing at all. It's is and has been in plain sight.
Just out of your consciousness.

The ocean record has been quite consistent.

If you mean by your ingenous question why the ocean/atmosphere balance shifted....you do there were frequent La Nina's.

Now El Nino's are dominant and the balance is changing again.....as it did in your favourite 1998 anomaly.

Bottom line Haig....your premises are garbage.
Agw continues on unabated ...over laying the normal regional variables....ask Alaska or Siberia how severe those "regional variances" are this year.

Those are record anomalies over a broad sector of the globe....

march-temps.jpg


you didn't explain the one record cold and what it portends.....perhaps you don't know.....fancy that.
 
:rolleyes:What missing heat is that??.....seems it's not missing at all. It's is and has been in plain sight.
Just out of your consciousness.

The ocean record has been quite consistent.

If you mean by your ingenous question why the ocean/atmosphere balance shifted....you do there were frequent La Nina's.

Now El Nino's are dominant and the balance is changing again.....as it did in your favourite 1998 anomaly.

Bottom line Haig....your premises are garbage.
Agw continues on unabated ...over laying the normal regional variables....ask Alaska or Siberia how severe those "regional variances" are this year.

Those are record anomalies over a broad sector of the globe....


you didn't explain the one record cold and what it portends.....perhaps you don't know.....fancy that.


You're funny macdoc :) but you're running out of excuses !

Updated list of 63 excuses for the 18-26 year 'pause' in global warming

Sure the climate is changing but our input is swamped by natural variability.

Climate Change is Real
 
You're funny macdoc :) but you're running out of excuses !

One of the best things about climate denial is the insistence on not reading evidence that negates the denier's opinion.

I'm very interested to know why you are attempting to discredit the scientific position.

Do you want a warmer planet? Or, do you just disbelieve that CO2, N2O and CH4 are harmful?

We must be able to agree that those three chemicals are being released into the atmosphere in much greater amounts than at any time during human occupation of the planet.

In your world, what happens to those gases? Do they not affect the atmosphere and/or rest of the planet?
 
Haig - your cause is hopeless....there is no pause in AGW ....get over it and move on....you have no case. Just tripe from the denier blogs.

Top10YearsGlobally_2014.jpg

In the face of the hottest years on record and ocean numbers off the chart you insist there has been no warming....wait til you see 2015...

There is likely a medical term for persistent delusion...denial of reality.
THIS is reality....

march-temps.jpg


and even the energy companies are taking steps to deal with it.....you on the other hand

:dl:

You still dodging the one cold record?? Care to explain that cold blue dot in the Atlantic? I think this is the third time you've dodged a pointed question. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
We must be able to agree that those three chemicals are being released into the atmosphere in much greater amounts than at any time during human occupation of the planet.

In your world, what happens to those gases? Do they not affect the atmosphere and/or rest of the planet?

Most importantly, they are being released at rates that are many times the highest rates evidenced in the geologic record,...this is truly an experiment that is taking our planet into uncharted territories.
 
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...g-in-india-is-this-a-glimpse-of-earths-future

Roads have twisted in the heat. Hospitals are overwhelmed by thousands of dehydrated people, the poor, the elderly and children among the worst hit. Urgent instructions to wear wide-brimmed hats and light-coloured cotton clothes, use umbrellas and drink lots of fluid have been issued by the government.

India is struggling to cope with one of the deadliest heatwaves to hit the subcontinent. And its attempt to do so is raising a question for the whole planet – how can humans cope with the kinds of temperatures that scientists fear may become ever more common?

In only 10 days, the death toll is reported to have reached around 1,800, a 20-year high. The brunt of the burden has fallen on the southern state of Andhra Pradesh, where 1,300 people have died, the highest loss of life due to heat the state has known, according to officials. By comparison, 447 people in the state died from the heat last year.

picture.php
 
Last edited:
Which is the exact equivalent of a denier saying there's no global warming because it snowed in Chicago.

Unless you'd like to provide evidence the heatwave is caused by AGW?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom