Reply to: Climate change

[EternalOptimist]

What an AGW warmist looks like.

wow. with hot totty like that, I am convinced

The solar panels are going up next week

[pjclarke]

What a bunch of alarmists. Here's the Press Release that triggered the hysteria ... Simultaneous action needed to break cultural inertia in climate-change response | Media Relations

Notice the lack of any reference to "sickness", "treatment" or cattle trucks ....

On the other hand

"These evil pseudo-scientists, through the falsity of their statistical manipulations, have already killed far more people through starvation than "global warming" will ever kill. They should now be indicted and should stand trial alongside Radovan Karadzic for nothing less than high crimes against humanity: for, in their callous disregard for the fatal consequences of their corrupt falsification of science, they are no less guilty of genocide than he."

Climate Sceptic hero Viscount Monckton believes that Professor Michael Mann should be put on trial for genocide .... in case you're wondering what a climate sceptic hero looks like ....

[Churchill]

What an AGW warmist looks like.

I would!

Churchill - In "Mich the Tester" mode!

[BlasterBates]

What - that the actual (1.6) is more than the lower predicted range (1.3) and less than the higher (2.8?) One would hope so. Also they can make a judgement as to the integrity of Blog Scientist Clive Best and by extension those who cite him.

If you shift them down to the running mean they're not.

Anyway anyone can print the graph out and check it. One thing I wouldn't do is trust what pjclarke says.

[BlasterBates]

What an AGW warmist looks like.

[EternalOptimist]

Beware Blaster
The latest news from the eco-loony front lines is that they think sceptics are diseased mental cases, and need to be shipped off for 'treatment'. In cattle trucks presumably


First they came for the sceptics, and I was not a sceptic...

[pjclarke]

Nice try...but I think everyone can draw their own conclusions.

What - that the actual (1.6) is more than the lower predicted range (1.3) and less than the higher (2.8?) One would hope so. Also they can make a judgement as to the integrity of Blog Scientist Clive Best and by extension those who cite him.

[BlasterBates]

Well, here is the source of the graph 1990 IPCC predictions confront the data | Clive Best

Clive Best did indeed take text from the 1990 IPCC report, and derive a linear trend from it. He then attached that trend to the actual temperature in 1990.





Statistical balony: comparing a linear trend with observations starting at a local peak artificially translates the IPCC projections upwards. The actual trends in HADCRUT and UAH since 1990 are 1.7 and 1.6C, well within the range projected by the IPCC.

This is not "The truth about IPCC predictions:" by any stretch of the imagination.

And if you shift the curve down to the smoothed average, doesn't make a lot of difference really, does it, you mean instead of being incredibly way out it's just extremely way out.

Nice try...but I think everyone can draw their own conclusions.

[pjclarke]

Well, here is the source of the graph 1990 IPCC predictions confront the data | Clive Best

Clive Best did indeed take text from the 1990 IPCC report, and derive a linear trend from it. He then attached that trend to the actual temperature in 1990.

The IPCC curves are based on a linear increase using the 1990 temperature value of HadCrut.

Statistical balony: comparing a linear trend with observations starting at a local peak artificially translates the IPCC projections upwards. The actual trends in HADCRUT and UAH since 1990 are 1.7 and 1.6C, well within the range projected by the IPCC.

This is not "The truth about IPCC predictions:" by any stretch of the imagination.

[BlasterBates]

the current generation of models is spot on.

You mean the models which are constantlly adjusted to fit what actually happened, because the old ones are wrong. The model you put up was reconstructed in 2000, because the models they had in 1990 are completely wrong, and of course most of that graph is a hindcast, they just simply fitted it to what went on before. It's now beginning to deviate pretty siginficantly and that deviation is going to grow as it gets cooler.

Don't you think there will be a new generation of models in 10 years time?

The IPCC dataset is in any case inaccurate:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

It really is pathetic.

[EternalOptimist]

.... climate change denier favourite killer argument. Twelve years ago, a non-science journalist assembled an ...

Could it get more sad?

These aren’t the failed predictions you’re looking for. Move along.

[pjclarke]

Let us deploy a little scepticism. These are not model runs so what is actually plotted here? No reference so let's make an educated guess; these look like the trends quoted in the Summaries of the IPCC reports, e.g. AR1:

Based on current models, we predict: under [BAU] increase of global mean temperature during the [21st] century of about 0.3 oC per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 to 0.5 oC per decade);

so what the compiler of this piece of nonsense seems to have done is attach a trend line of 0.3C/decade onto the actual 1990 temp - which by happy (for him) was a local peak. And WHOOSH - the projection soars away from the observations! Never mind that the trend was meant to cover a whole century, with most of the warming happening towards the end.

Similarly the summary of AR2 (1995) gave a best estimate of a 2C rise by 2100, the reduction due to an increased understanding of aerosols. Again the authors seem to have attached a trend line of 0.2C/decade to the actual temperature, and off we go!

For AR3 the actual numbers are available - IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001 - Complete online versions | UNEP/GRID-Arendal - Publications - Other...

The scenarios were baselined in 1990 making a comparison fairly straightforward. Choice of scenario doesn't make much difference in the first few decades, but choosing scenario A1F1, which is arguably the nearest to actual conditions, the IPCC model projected a rise from 1990-2010 of 0.32C or 0.16C/ decade. The actual trend was 0.165C/decade.

I've no idea what this misleading graph is plotting, however the actual data from the IPCC shows that far from overestimating the actual rise, the current generation of models is spot on.

Sceptical Science have pages on each of the actual IPCC report forecasts - using the data not the summaries - and Realclimate recently updated their regular model/data comparisons. None of them looks anything like this graph. A little more scepticism is called for!

[BlasterBates]

The truth about IPCC predictions:

[pjclarke]

and snow will become a thing of the past

And so, with a dreary inevitabilty, we come back to the official CUK climate change denier favourite killer argument. Twelve years ago, a non-science journalist assembled an extraordinarily sloppy rent-a-quote piece which yielded one or two denier-friendly sentences. The piece was completely at odds with the scientific thought then and now. But hey, its all we've got so we are going to ignore the hundreds of actual scientific papers and quote it again. And again. And again. And again.

Could it get more sad?

http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...ml#post1472998

[EternalOptimist]

Was that a typo or a cutting remark on humankind?

you need to read it again