Climate change: 2015 will be the hottest year on record 'by a mile', experts say

[Old Rocks]

Flacaltenn

I lied -- one more --- PLEASE !!!!! This one is for GoldiRocks -- AKA ChickenLittle..
Top Graph ONLY ...... (they come in pairs for some reason in the image views.. )


16. How would you rate the ability of global climate models to:
16i. model extreme events for the next 10 years

very poor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very good

Variable | Obs Mean Std. Dev.Min Max
........................................................................................................................

Were I answering that question, I would have to put it at between 2 and 3. Weather events are chaotic, and very hard to predict as to type, how bad, and where. Had the question been "Is there going to be an increase in extreme weather events in the next 10 years?", then I think you would have seen the curve skewed to the right. Our present ability to model what those events will be, and where they will be at is pretty primitive.

 

[Old Rocks]

It is only a matter of time before the radical left warmers start rounding up deniers and shipping them to the gulag...the radical left loves gulags.

I am sure we have posters here that would be fine with it. Hell those damn deniers are so stupid they deserve to be imprisoned...right?

Crick is a fan of offing the deniers

Makes one wonder what percentage of warmers would like to see a denier holocaust. A new Killing Fields might be just fine with them.

Po' baby. Do you check under your bed at night? Do you have enough firearms in your bed with you? Have you at least 1000 rounds of ammo on the nightstand? Cannot be too careful, you know.

My goodness, this just gets funnier with every day.

no...just know my history, unlike you...and the Left has a long history of killing and enslaving. When will you ever learn?

Yes, the extreme left wing has exactly that. As does the extreme right wing. Extremists of any political bent are dangerous. That is why the conservative and liberals of this nation routinely turn them out of office when they show their faces. Witness 'Tailgunner Joe'.

 

[flacaltenn]

Flacaltenn

I lied -- one more --- PLEASE !!!!! This one is for GoldiRocks -- AKA ChickenLittle..
Top Graph ONLY ...... (they come in pairs for some reason in the image views.. )


16. How would you rate the ability of global climate models to:
16i. model extreme events for the next 10 years

very poor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very good

Variable | Obs Mean Std. Dev.Min Max
........................................................................................................................

Were I answering that question, I would have to put it at between 2 and 3. Weather events are chaotic, and very hard to predict as to type, how bad, and where. Had the question been "Is there going to be an increase in extreme weather events in the next 10 years?", then I think you would have seen the curve skewed to the right. Our present ability to model what those events will be, and where they will be at is pretty primitive.

That's because there is no justification for observing effects today. Most of the CREDIBLE predictions are for DECADES from now.. Other than maybe ice melt RATES...

How would they KNOW there's gonna be an increase if they can't model it? Only thru the simplistic "heat is weather" studies by Hansen et al...

 

[Old Rocks]

Heat is weather. How many thousands of square miles of the Northwest burned so far this year. Record heat, drought, and winds. You might have a problem convincing some of the hundreds of families that have lost their homes to those fires that heat is not a determining factor in weather.

 

[IanC]

This is the only one of Cricks that was DONE by climate scientists and asked realistic questions..
And CrickHam didn't even understand the LACK of consensus that it demonstrates. AND IT'S OLD..


Bray and von Storch, 2008
Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Research Centre in Germany, conducted an online survey in August 2008, of 2,059 climate scientists from 34 different countries, the third survey on this topic by these authors.[12] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 375 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18%. The climate change consensus results were published by Bray,[13] and another paper has also been published based on the survey.[14]


This is BEST of the old surveys because von Storch designed the questions. NONE of the biased summaries I've ever seen convey the IMPORTANCE of this poll..

On scales of 1 to 7 for 76 technical questions about GW theory and research -- the number of scientists giving 6 or 7 answers to those important questions --- is very small..

THAT is NOT an unconditional -- "the science is settled --- no debate result"..

DARE YOU warmers to STUDY it --- and come back and tell me there is any kind of unconditional consensus on this science..

Pay specific attention to the questions about whether Climate science has been subjected to political influence.. For the rest of us --- BOOKMARK IT ---- because for anyone who can follow the debate --- it shows how shallow the scientific opinion on a consensus really is..

Thanks for grinding away at the simplistic claims of crick et al. I don't have the interest or patience to repeat the same counter arguments over and over again. But crick and Old Rocks can be counted on to repeat the same bullshit claims every few months even after they have been rebutted.

How does that saying go? Something like....an honest reasonable man can make a mistake but once it is pointed out to him and he still repeats it, then he is neither honest or reasonable.

 

[threegoofs]

This is the only one of Cricks that was DONE by climate scientists and asked realistic questions..
And CrickHam didn't even understand the LACK of consensus that it demonstrates. AND IT'S OLD..


Bray and von Storch, 2008
Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Research Centre in Germany, conducted an online survey in August 2008, of 2,059 climate scientists from 34 different countries, the third survey on this topic by these authors.[12] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 375 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18%. The climate change consensus results were published by Bray,[13] and another paper has also been published based on the survey.[14]


This is BEST of the old surveys because von Storch designed the questions. NONE of the biased summaries I've ever seen convey the IMPORTANCE of this poll..

On scales of 1 to 7 for 76 technical questions about GW theory and research -- the number of scientists giving 6 or 7 answers to those important questions --- is very small..

THAT is NOT an unconditional -- "the science is settled --- no debate result"..

DARE YOU warmers to STUDY it --- and come back and tell me there is any kind of unconditional consensus on this science..

Pay specific attention to the questions about whether Climate science has been subjected to political influence.. For the rest of us --- BOOKMARK IT ---- because for anyone who can follow the debate --- it shows how shallow the scientific opinion on a consensus really is..

Thanks for grinding away at the simplistic claims of crick et al. I don't have the interest or patience to repeat the same counter arguments over and over again. But crick and Old Rocks can be counted on to repeat the same bullshit claims every few months even after they have been rebutted.

How does that saying go? Something like....an honest reasonable man can make a mistake but once it is pointed out to him and he still repeats it, then he is neither honest or reasonable.

I agree with the last statement.

Anyone who pretends there is not a fairly solid consensus in science on this issue, as outlined by the IPCC, is neither honest or reasonable.

Pick any reasonable general scientific publication aimed at an educated lay audience- Scientific American, Science Magazine, Smithsonian, National Geographic.... All are in solid agreement. The reason for this is because they reflect the consensus in the real, scientific professional journals: Nature, PNAS, Science, etc.

Although the alternative to being dishonest and unreasonable is to be totally stupid, which is clearly the case with some posters here.

 

[IanC]

There are a lot of unreasonable posters here, on both sides. And mostly they just talk over each other with no effort made to understand the other side's points, or to examine the evidence, or to evaluate the conclusions drawn from that evidence.

I have done all three for many general positions and more than a few specific papers. The evidence is often equivocal, and the conclusions biased in a way that should make a scientist cringe. Worst of all is the exaggerated certainty in which it is presented.

 

[threegoofs]

There are a lot of unreasonable posters here, on both sides. And mostly they just talk over each other with no effort made to understand the other side's points, or to examine the evidence, or to evaluate the conclusions drawn from that evidence.

I have done all three for many general positions and more than a few specific papers. The evidence is often equivocal, and the conclusions biased in a way that should make a scientist cringe. Worst of all is the exaggerated certainty in which it is presented.

Pick any reasonable general scientific publication aimed at an educated lay audience- Scientific American, Science Magazine, Smithsonian, National Geographic.... All are in solid agreement. The reason for this is because they reflect the consensus in the real, scientific professional journals: Nature, PNAS, Science, etc.

 

[IanC]

I am not really interested in discussing the political policy decisions of publications that have already publicly announced their position. Give me the name of a paper that you consider important to your belief in AGW. Preferably non paywalled so we can examine the data.

 

[threegoofs]

I am not really interested in discussing the political policy decisions of publications that have already publicly announced their position. Give me the name of a paper that you consider important to your belief in AGW. Preferably non paywalled so we can examine the data.

These aren't 'political policy decisions' anymore than plate tectonics or evolutionary biology or magnetism are political policy decisions.

They are established scientific organizations reflecting the broad consensus that the IPCC is generally correct, AGW is real, it's having environmental impacts now, and it is likely to be a serious problem in the future.

Wanting a single paper is like asking for a single paper to profess my belief in Gravity, or Evolution. It's a theory based upon a mass of evidence.

 

[IanC]

As you wish. Your vote is to defer to authority. Mine is to examine evidence and to see if the conclusions drawn are defendable.

 

[threegoofs]

As you wish. Your vote is to defer to authority. Mine is to examine evidence and to see if the conclusions drawn are defendable.

Except you don't have any expertise to determine the conclusions are correct.

It's like a guy examining an MRI with little training in radiology, and all the experts are telling you the spot on it is cancer, but you insist that it's just a shadow.

That's why you have to pretend there is no consensus. Are you Dishonest, or naive? You tell me.

 

[IanC]

As you wish. Your vote is to defer to authority. Mine is to examine evidence and to see if the conclusions drawn are defendable.

Except you don't have any expertise to determine the conclusions are correct.

It's like a guy examining an MRI with little training in radiology, and all the experts are telling you the spot on it is cancer, but you insist that it's just a shadow.

That's why you have to pretend there is no consensus. Are you Dishonest, or naive? You tell me.

Hahahahaha, more straw man analogies?

Scientific papers are not magic, needing a shaman to interpret them. They are collections of data, often put together in a novel way to highlight an idea or conclusion. When put in context of other similar types of papers they either reinforce existing ideas or point out inconsistencies.

Climate science has had a recent history of failed statistical methodologies that anyone with a reasonable general knowledge can follow, especially when pointed out by someone with the requisite mathematical skill.

 

[threegoofs]

As you wish. Your vote is to defer to authority. Mine is to examine evidence and to see if the conclusions drawn are defendable.

Except you don't have any expertise to determine the conclusions are correct.

It's like a guy examining an MRI with little training in radiology, and all the experts are telling you the spot on it is cancer, but you insist that it's just a shadow.

That's why you have to pretend there is no consensus. Are you Dishonest, or naive? You tell me.

Hahahahaha, more straw man analogies?

Scientific papers are not magic, needing a shaman to interpret them. They are collections of data, often put together in a novel way to highlight an idea or conclusion. When put in context of other similar types of papers they either reinforce existing ideas or point out inconsistencies.

Climate science has had a recent history of failed statistical methodologies that anyone with a reasonable general knowledge can follow, especially when pointed out by someone with the requisite mathematical skill.

No. The stats are fine in the major papers in major journals. That's what good editorial staffs and peer review checks for.

The 'strawman' is an analogy, not a strawman. You probsy should read a little about logical fallacies so you'll understand the difference- just another thing you seem to be unaware of.

Once again, the major scientific sources we all rely on for other science are pretty much in consensus. Unless you have some special skill, the chances of you being correct is (and brace yourself for the illustrative analogy here...) like you calling a cancer diagnosis against expert opinion on an MRI film you have no training on.

 

[IanC]

Dude! You're pretty full of yourself,eh?

Straw man analogy is a shorthand description that gets the point across quite nicely. Your analogy is false, and meant only demean.

 

[Crick]

Ian,

how often does Science call you up and ask you to review a submission?

 

[IanC]

Peer review has certainly had a lot of black eyes lately. The Gergis paper that went into limbo after being fully accepted was actually a success in a way. Paper that are accepted and printed seldom get retracted in climate science no matter how bad the discovered mistakes. Of course PAGES2K used it anyways.

 

[IanC]

Ian,

how often does Science call you up and ask you to review a submission?

Exactly as often as they call you, I presume.

 

[chikenwing]

After last winter, warm would be good.

 

[threegoofs]

Dude! You're pretty full of yourself,eh?

Straw man analogy is a shorthand description that gets the point across quite nicely. Your analogy is false, and meant only demean.

No. Straw man arguments are logical fallacies.

Analogies are analogies. And mine was spot on. It is only demeaning to you because it exposed a truth.