Assessment of the first consensus prediction on climate change

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Trakar, Dec 29, 2012.

  1. Trakar
    Offline

    Trakar Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,698
    Thanks Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +73
    Assessment of the first consensus prediction on climate change - http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1763.html
    Nature Climate Change(2012)(2012)doi:10.1038/nclimate1763
    Received 31 July 2012 Accepted 01 November 2012
    [Abstract]
    In 1990, climate scientists from around the world wrote the First Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It contained a prediction of the global mean temperature trend over the 1990–2030 period that, halfway through that period, seems accurate. This is all the more remarkable in hindsight, considering that a number of important external forcings were not included. So how did this success arise? In the end, the greenhouse-gas-induced warming is largely overwhelming the other forcings, which are only of secondary importance on the 20-year timescale.


    Professor Frame and Dr. Dáithí Stone, from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, have produced this report comparing predictions from the first Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Report published in 1990, with global climate change data gathered over the past 20 years. Their analysis indicates that the global climate is responding largely as predicted by the first IPCC report, which included a range of predictions for global temperature increase to the year 2030. We are now at the midpoint of that period, and the data shows that the actual global mean surface temperature increase has been between 0.35-0.39 degrees Celsius, which is in reasonable agreement with the 1990 predictions. Professor Frame and Dr. Stone have compared the results from these models against observed changes. From the resulting study, it is highly unlikely that recent changes can be accounted for by natural variability alone.
     
  2. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    23,211
    Thanks Received:
    3,597
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +3,835
    Thankfully science doesn't concern itself with "consensus" which is a purely political term.
     
  3. Trakar
    Offline

    Trakar Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,698
    Thanks Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +73
    Thankfully, science isn't restricted to your distorted understandings of what is and is not within its purview. But then again, given your posts here, I doubt that many would confuse you for someone who understands any aspect of science, mathematics or reality in general.
     
  4. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    23,211
    Thanks Received:
    3,597
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +3,835




    Funny you should mention mathematics.... The AGW high priests never seem to be able to do it correctly.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. RollingThunder
    Offline

    RollingThunder VIP Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,107
    Thanks Received:
    250
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +266
    That's certainly one of the myths of your little astro-turfed cult of denial but, as always, it has nothing to do with reality.
     
  6. Trakar
    Offline

    Trakar Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,698
    Thanks Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +73
    Please support this assertion with compelling citation and reference
     
  7. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    23,211
    Thanks Received:
    3,597
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +3,835




    Gergis et al.

    "This seems to suggest that Gergis's declaration that the correlations were based on detrended data was false and that she and her co-authors had indeed fallen foul of the circular argument noted above. The finding of unprecedented warmth reported in the Gergis paper appears as though it is a function of the methodology used rather than of the underlying data."


    In other words they screwed up on their math.....

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/6/7/another-hockey-stick-broken.html
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2012
  8. RollingThunder
    Offline

    RollingThunder VIP Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,107
    Thanks Received:
    250
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +266
    LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....you are too funny, walleyed.....your idea of a "compelling citation and reference" to back up your ridiculous crackpot assertion that climate scientists "never seem to be able to do [mathematics] correctly", is a link to some idiotic pseudo-science article by some unknown nutjob denier cultist on a denier cult blog.....LOLOLOLOL.....you poor clueless retard.....

    In other words, someone screwed up your head.....maybe your parents, or your genetics, or oil corp propagandists, or some combo of those....who knows.....you're just flat out too bamboozled and confused to know which end is up....
     
  9. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    34,309
    Thanks Received:
    3,699
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +3,925
    Andrew Montford - SourceWatch


    Andrew W Montford has a degree in Chemistry from St Andrews University, he is behind the Bishop Hill climate skeptic blog. Montford is a Chartered Accountant by trade , living and practicing in Scotland[1]
     
  10. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    34,309
    Thanks Received:
    3,699
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +3,925
    Trakar posts from a peer reviewed scientific journal, Walleyes posts from a blog of a person that has no connection with any kind of climate research.
     
  11. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    56,607
    Thanks Received:
    9,009
    Trophy Points:
    300
    Ratings:
    +10,101
    Vostock ice cores demolish the idea of any CO2 forcing

    420,000 year data set showing NO FORCING

    NONE

    ZERO

    ZIPPO

    [​IMG]
     
  12. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    56,607
    Thanks Received:
    9,009
    Trophy Points:
    300
    Ratings:
    +10,101
    Peer Review =/= science
     
  13. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    56,607
    Thanks Received:
    9,009
    Trophy Points:
    300
    Ratings:
    +10,101
    Consensus =/= science
     
  14. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Clipboard Guy! Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    20,502
    Thanks Received:
    4,251
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Trinity Site
    Ratings:
    +4,725
    And Obama won't sign any "Global Warming" legislation or agreement because it will halt our "already fragile recovery" (his words)

    Give it up Warmists, no one believes your nutter sh*t anymore.
     
  15. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    34,309
    Thanks Received:
    3,699
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +3,925
    Completely wrong, as usual.


    Energy Update - Rasmussen Reports™

    While there was little talk of climate change during the presidential campaign, the number of U.S. voters who see global warming as a serious problem is at an all-time high.

    A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 68% of Likely U.S. Voters now say global warming is at least a somewhat serious problem, including 38% who think it’s Very Serious. Thirty percent (30%) don’t see global warming as a serious problem, with 12% who think it’s Not At All Serious. (To see survey question wording
     
  16. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    56,607
    Thanks Received:
    9,009
    Trophy Points:
    300
    Ratings:
    +10,101
    [​IMG]
     
  17. Trakar
    Offline

    Trakar Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,698
    Thanks Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +73
    A blog post where the author is neither a climate scientist nor a mathematician, and in which the author misstates and obviously misunderstands the words of the paper he is reviewing, is hardly compelling support for your assertions. I am more than open to reviewing any compelling science support you have for your position, but offers such as these discredit your contentions rather than offering them support.
     
  18. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    35,966
    Thanks Received:
    9,556
    Trophy Points:
    302
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +10,299


    So.....peer-review is important?

    Yes?

    Maybe you should take a gander hence:

    Of the 18531 references in the 2007 Climate Bible we found 5587- a full 30%- to be non-peer reviewed. Of the 5587 non-peer citations, a grand total of six, or 0.1 percent, were flagged as such.
    Donna Laframboise, "The Delinquent Teenager Who Became The World's Top Climate Expert."
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  19. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    23,211
    Thanks Received:
    3,597
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +3,835




    And yet, it was one of those blogs that destroyed Gergis in 10 hours. So much so that Gergis (which had allready passed PAL review) was REMOVED from publication....

    Looks like the blogs were right and your idiots were wrong...yeat again.

    Thanks for playing idiot.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  20. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    23,211
    Thanks Received:
    3,597
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +3,835




    And yet a similar blog DESTROYED GERGIS in other 10 hours. Sure you want to hang your hat on that little bit of ignorance? Remember what Feynman said about the scientific method.."it doesn't matter what your name is, all that matters is if you are right or wrong"
    and GERGIS was WRONG!

    Thank you too for playing and letting the people know that you care more about someones name than if they are a good scientist....or not in the case of your high priests...:lol::lol:
     

Share This Page