UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
just the other day you said the earth was cooling.
you can go sit in the corner. this debate is not for you, child.
Ipcc report 2013
- Thread starter ginjawarrior
- Start date
just the other day you said the earth was cooling.
you can go sit in the corner. this debate is not for you, child.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
I'm unsure as to which parts you are talking about. I don't know if you posted picture but it's not showing up here
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
http://www.climatechange2013.org/background/
[TABLE="width: 712"]
[TR="class: tdbleumoyen, bgcolor: #87A2D7"]
[TD="colspan: 2"]IPCC Fact Sheets[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]What is the IPCC?[/TD]
[TD]How does the IPCC approve reports?[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]How does the IPCC review process work?[/TD]
[TD]What literature does the IPCC assess?[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]How does the IPCC select its authors?[/TD]
[TD]How does the IPCC deal with alleged errors?[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="width: 712"]
[TR="class: tdbleumoyen, bgcolor: #87A2D7"]
[TD="colspan: 2"]IPCC Fact Sheets[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]What is the IPCC?[/TD]
[TD]How does the IPCC approve reports?[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]How does the IPCC review process work?[/TD]
[TD]What literature does the IPCC assess?[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]How does the IPCC select its authors?[/TD]
[TD]How does the IPCC deal with alleged errors?[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
I've never known climate nerds to get laid often.
I just use this section to let off steam so I don't go beat the shit out of someone when I have a sensory overload and meltdown. What's your excuse?
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
I post here because not all potheads are right-wing bible thumping fascists
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Two out of three ain't bad.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
http://climexp.knmi.nl that is the site where the model data was cherry picked from
On the right hand side you'll see
Select a time series
Daily station data
Daily climate indices
Monthly station data
Monthly climate indices
Annual climate indices
View, upload your time series
Select a field
Daily fields
Monthly observations
Monthly reanalysis fields
Monthly seasonal hindcasts
Monthly decadal hindcasts
Monthly RCM runs
Monthly CMIP3+ scenario runs
Monthly CMIP5 scenario runs
Monthly and seasonal historical reconstructions
External data (ensembles, ncep, enact, soda, ecmwf, ...)
View, upload your field
Click on any of them and see how meaning less your graph is with supporting text...
heckler73
Well-Known Member
Indeed... something seems to be wrong with the image service. I can't upload any pics either, but it was there earlier.
This was the text I was referring to:
The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 19982012 as compared to
the period 19512012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing
and a cooling contribution from internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of
heat within the ocean (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily
due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle.
However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in
causing the reduced warming trend. There is medium confidence that internal decadal
variability causes to a substantial degree the difference between observations and the
simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of internal variability. There
may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of
the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the
effects of aerosols). {9.4, Box 9.2, 10.3, Box 10.2, 11.3}
When I see that, my "error radar" goes off. But that's why I need to look at the report proper where they should have a more detailed explanation for these issues. I suppose for policy makers, it is irrelevant.
Attachments
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
As to the first the confidence levels are listed at the bottom of second page labelled "introduction"
Basically they're saying there's some evidence points one way but more evidence is needed to say for certain
seems an open and honest account of the evidence at hand
As to the second they have lowered the lower range by .5c because sensitivity was not as first predicted. is it not science doing what science should and adjusting according to the data held at the time
I'd be suspicious if they turned round and said the previous numbers were exactly perfect and even with better measurements nothing is changed even down to 0.00000001c
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
maybe if you be a little angrier, the cherry trees in washington will stop blooming earlier and earlier.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Well, that memory does play tricks. Right before the UN voted against cooling, they voted against warming, back in the 1970s.
Remember that famous decade.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Non-statistical Data Pairing
Non-rigorous Application of Method
Consensus set before Evidence gathered
I could go on.
Doer
Well-Known Member
That, sir, is a very excellent point and here I pass you a +1 Rep. Good job!
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
Must be difficult being stuck 4 decades in the past...
Still using a cassette to load your computer?
Doer
Well-Known Member
Bucky, they always do that. Then it straightens out with leap year. Remember, or stop not listening.
Every lifetime (57.2 years) we move a day early in Sidereal Real Time heating and cooling in our Orbit around the Sun.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
Non-statistical Data Pairing
Non-rigorous Application of Method
Consensus set before Evidence gathered
I could go on.
Of course your propensity to make shit up knows of no bounds...
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
The climate has been cooling for over a decade.
Do you feel the need to swing from my nuts after every post I make?
I must really get under your skin cheesybeard.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
No it hasn't...
Doer
Well-Known Member
since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. ..............we have not been observing for millennia.
The atmosphere and ocean have warmed....no. Not the oceans
Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes.....Not what the WG1 is saying. Not what the data are showing. Hidden somehow. Yes?
I could go on and the submission is FULL of conclusions before evidence, via pick choose for the Anti-Big-Oil agenda. Is likely? Not so likely, somewhat likely?
And I still say, so what?
Look at the other side. What if civilization could not withstand the ice age without adding a bit of warming? Say we are warming the planet. OK? Fine.
Maybe we should keep warming it. Ever think of that? Maybe that is a good thing. That is the problem with the foregone conclusions.
- we don't know the climate system
- we then don't know why this extra heat (4 H-bombs a second or some such panic) is not going in....Hidden?
- maybe we are not looking at it correctly.....like cold Fusion? No there, there when we look at the Method.
- maybe we are all wrong again, and we really are cooling, and the previously observed warming was the "glitch."
- maybe this some deep cycling rogue wave, a little heating catching up from the last Ice Age. If we use probabliity, a one off, is possible.
AND MAYBE, warming is the best for humans. We tend to be very lucky monkeys. And we make our own luck without knowing, all the time. Read history.
WHAT IF< warming is good,. we need it and we are trying to kill ourselves by stopping it?. Seems very highly likely given the Black Heart of Man.
That is what Method could explore in the absence of politics and rip-off and pay back on Big Oil.
Similar threads
