Global Warming: predictions vs measurements

Post Reply New Topic

This kind of says it all:



For those of us who are in favor of global warming as being a way to possibly delay entering another period of glaciation, this is not good.

This really doesn't say anything of value, as any numerate person familiar with statistics is well aware.

No, I'm saying the "average of IPCC climate models" plotted is useless and irrelevant.

The actual data clearly shows a warming trend and is consistent with SOME of the climate models.

Trying to cast doubt on this by averaging the more accurate models with the most wildly off models is not a useful exercise.

As I understand it, the only way to not have the slow down is to "adjust" the data. That opens up big questions of whether or not the data is real or merely reflects observer bias.

Deniers are choosing what they want to believe, looking for the result they want.

It doesn't make sense.

Personally, I would love for this problem to go away, but look at the chart in the OP. Those little blue "actual data" lines keep moving up... a drop here, a steep climb there, sure--but the trend is clear.

Whether you want to believe it or not, there it is. The rest is sophistry and posturing.

David, you are choosing to see those emails as evidence of something because it's what you want to believe.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badas ... XRPIlVViko

http://www.skepticblog.org/2012/02/22/t ... denialism/

It doesn't make any difference what you believe or want. It also doesn't make any difference whether or not we agree. Ice loss will continue in Greenland and Antarctica, etc.

The people for whom climate change denial has become an article of faith will continue to cling to any shred of seeming evidence, even as evidence of real change floods in all around them.

It's all chasing after wind.

That might be true, but I don't need to be a climate-research scientist to understand the phrase "hide the decline."

"Hiding" anything in research means what, exactly?

The wikipedia page you link to has the following note about that language:

It isn't only the Climategate e-mail messages and other leaked documents (including the actual computer-code notations ( http://www.wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/ ... more-13065 ) about how the data was "artificially adjusted") that convince me that there is something there, there. It is also the Hockey Stick Controversy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_st ... stigations ) since 1998, the U.K. High Court of Justice of England and Wales opinion in the matter of Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills of 2007 (which required that guidance notes should be included during all school presentations of Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth film to address the "nine inaccuracies" of the so-called documentary) ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/e ... ruths.html ), the former NASA scientists and astronauts who admonished the agency via an open letter in 2012 ( http://www.sppiblog.org/news/former-nas ... e-position ) on its climate-change opinion, and the published interview with former NASA scientist Dr. Les Woodcock who stated in 2014 that "Global warming is nonsense" ( http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/n ... -1-6536732 ).

Where there is smoke, there is fire. When much of the smoke is coming from the anthropogenic climate change crowd itself, there is reason to doubt its veracity.