Global Warming of 1.5C

[Sunsettommy]

Crick then asked me with a straight face to provide him with the list of unknown natural factors! Hahahahaha. And gave me a graph of known anthropogenic factors.

No, he didn't ask you for a "list of unknown natural factors". He asked:

"What unknown influences and factors Ian?"

That may sound puzzling at first blush, but it is a plausible response, since you so confidently asserted, "The chaotic nature of climate change means that unknown influences and combinations of factors cause unknowable changes of variable magnitude."

And with that babbling of yours it's perfectly reasonable to ask what influences and factors you may have in mind. Because, taking reasonable what you typed, elves might have some influence on our climate, too. We just haven't seen elves lately. So, you seem to be throwing in comments that would destroy science itself. Because with every phenomenon physics describes, there could be a counter vaguely referring to "unknown influences", which might alter future developments. That, however, would be benighted.

And, he didn't give you a "graph of known anthropogenic factors". You can look up your misrepresentation yourself.

And that is (among many other instances of you misrepresenting, seemingly not understanding and distorting science) why ...

And now you are calling me ignorant and misleading?

... I do in fact call you ignorant and misleading. Because that's what describes you best.

Look, Ian, I'd really like to give you the benefit of the doubt, assuming you aren't just another merchant of doubt, harder thought that gets posting by posting. If you had gotten to work and engaged in debate, you'd have thought about Crick's question, and had come up with possible factors (or combinations thereof) the world's leading climate scientists may have overlooked, which might decisively alter the earth's energy balance. The old puzzle - cloud formation is difficult to model - patently doesn't fit the bill. The factor is at least an order of magnitude too small.

I am admittedly done with, and disinterested in, any back and forth with denialingdongs and ignoramuses trying to besmirch climate science. Their time is over (has been for a while). Inventing "unknown influences and combinations of factors" out of thin air may be somewhat creative, but it adds nothing to debate. There plainly is no there there. "Hahahahaha." For all I care, you can stuff that.

Hahahahaha. I see you are doubling down on stupid.

Just out of curiosity, what would you call the graph that Crick posted. I looked for the provenance but it didn't seem to have a caption.

The stupid boy never answered Todd's request at post 27

"Enlighten us"

He ran away after I made a fool of him over his absurd insistence that I have no idea what the IPCC was saying, when I posted the ENTIRE paragraph, he vanished probably realizing I did understand it. The fool never read in the link I had provided that whole segment that make clear the IPCC admitted it was a statistical modeling construct.

"Explore more fully the probabilistic character of future climate states by developing multiple ensembles of model39 calculations. The climate system is a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of 40 future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of41 the systems future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the42 statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model43 diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential"

bolding mine

Basically saying improve their far into the future guesses for better statistical relevance.

Here is the very next paragraph the fool didn't read:

"Improve the integrated hierarchy of global and regional climate models with emphases on improving the46 simulation of regional impacts and extreme weather events. There is the potential for increased understanding of47 extremes events by employing regional climate models; however, there are also challenges to realise this potential.48 It will require improvements in the understanding of the coupling between the major atmospheric, oceanic, and49 terrestrial systems, and extensive diagnostic modeling and observational studies that evaluate and improve50 simulative performance. A particularly important issue is the adequacy of data needed to attack the question of51 changes in extreme events."

bolding mine

A lot of admissions about needing to improve various states of modeling parameters.

You won't get a real discussion with him, as he is an ideologist.

 

[Crick]

Just out of curiosity, what would you call the graph that Crick posted. I looked for the provenance but it didn't seem to have a caption.

I assumed you would have seen the graph so many times that there'd be no need to identify it. That is from AR5 Ian.

And those data are not predictions.

 

[Olde Europe]

Hahahahaha. I see you are doubling down on stupid.

I confused you for someone you clearly are not. Won't happen again. Thanks for the clarification anyway.

 

[Crick]

See https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/07/WGI_AR5.Chap_.8_SM.pdf, section 8.SM.2 for an explanation of AR5 radiative forcing calculations.

 

[IanC]

Crick then asked me with a straight face to provide him with the list of unknown natural factors! Hahahahaha. And gave me a graph of known anthropogenic factors.

No, he didn't ask you for a "list of unknown natural factors". He asked:

"What unknown influences and factors Ian?"

That may sound puzzling at first blush, but it is a plausible response, since you so confidently asserted, "The chaotic nature of climate change means that unknown influences and combinations of factors cause unknowable changes of variable magnitude."

And with that babbling of yours it's perfectly reasonable to ask what influences and factors you may have in mind. Because, taking reasonable what you typed, elves might have some influence on our climate, too. We just haven't seen elves lately. So, you seem to be throwing in comments that would destroy science itself. Because with every phenomenon physics describes, there could be a counter vaguely referring to "unknown influences", which might alter future developments. That, however, would be benighted.

And, he didn't give you a "graph of known anthropogenic factors". You can look up your misrepresentation yourself.

And that is (among many other instances of you misrepresenting, seemingly not understanding and distorting science) why ...

And now you are calling me ignorant and misleading?

... I do in fact call you ignorant and misleading. Because that's what describes you best.

Look, Ian, I'd really like to give you the benefit of the doubt, assuming you aren't just another merchant of doubt, harder thought that gets posting by posting. If you had gotten to work and engaged in debate, you'd have thought about Crick's question, and had come up with possible factors (or combinations thereof) the world's leading climate scientists may have overlooked, which might decisively alter the earth's energy balance. The old puzzle - cloud formation is difficult to model - patently doesn't fit the bill. The factor is at least an order of magnitude too small.

I am admittedly done with, and disinterested in, any back and forth with denialingdongs and ignoramuses trying to besmirch climate science. Their time is over (has been for a while). Inventing "unknown influences and combinations of factors" out of thin air may be somewhat creative, but it adds nothing to debate. There plainly is no there there. "Hahahahaha." For all I care, you can stuff that.

Hahahahaha. I see you are doubling down on stupid.

Just out of curiosity, what would you call the graph that Crick posted. I looked for the provenance but it didn't seem to have a caption.

The stupid boy never answered Todd's request at post 27

"Enlighten us"

He ran away after I made a fool of him over his absurd insistence that I have no idea what the IPCC was saying, when I posted the ENTIRE paragraph, he vanished probably realizing I did understand it. The fool never read in the link I had provided that whole segment that make clear the IPCC admitted it was a statistical modeling construct.

"Explore more fully the probabilistic character of future climate states by developing multiple ensembles of model39 calculations. The climate system is a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of 40 future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of41 the systems future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the42 statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model43 diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential"

bolding mine

Basically saying improve their far into the future guesses for better statistical relevance.

Here is the very next paragraph the fool didn't read:

"Improve the integrated hierarchy of global and regional climate models with emphases on improving the46 simulation of regional impacts and extreme weather events. There is the potential for increased understanding of47 extremes events by employing regional climate models; however, there are also challenges to realise this potential.48 It will require improvements in the understanding of the coupling between the major atmospheric, oceanic, and49 terrestrial systems, and extensive diagnostic modeling and observational studies that evaluate and improve50 simulative performance. A particularly important issue is the adequacy of data needed to attack the question of51 changes in extreme events."

bolding mine

A lot of admissions about needing to improve various states of modeling parameters.

You won't get a real discussion with him, as he is an ideologist.

Yup. The crazy part is that these guys believe that every peer reviewed paper is right, even if it is contradicted by ones before or after it. And these warmer zealots compound their problem by credulously accepting the press releases that typically exaggerate the predictions of catastrophe drawn from these papers.

Wasn't there another one just recently? News flash "Oceans heating 40% faster than previously thought". Only it isn't true, and the headlines seldom get corrected.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Crick then asked me with a straight face to provide him with the list of unknown natural factors! Hahahahaha. And gave me a graph of known anthropogenic factors.

No, he didn't ask you for a "list of unknown natural factors". He asked:

"What unknown influences and factors Ian?"

That may sound puzzling at first blush, but it is a plausible response, since you so confidently asserted, "The chaotic nature of climate change means that unknown influences and combinations of factors cause unknowable changes of variable magnitude."

And with that babbling of yours it's perfectly reasonable to ask what influences and factors you may have in mind. Because, taking reasonable what you typed, elves might have some influence on our climate, too. We just haven't seen elves lately. So, you seem to be throwing in comments that would destroy science itself. Because with every phenomenon physics describes, there could be a counter vaguely referring to "unknown influences", which might alter future developments. That, however, would be benighted.

And, he didn't give you a "graph of known anthropogenic factors". You can look up your misrepresentation yourself.

And that is (among many other instances of you misrepresenting, seemingly not understanding and distorting science) why ...

And now you are calling me ignorant and misleading?

... I do in fact call you ignorant and misleading. Because that's what describes you best.

Look, Ian, I'd really like to give you the benefit of the doubt, assuming you aren't just another merchant of doubt, harder thought that gets posting by posting. If you had gotten to work and engaged in debate, you'd have thought about Crick's question, and had come up with possible factors (or combinations thereof) the world's leading climate scientists may have overlooked, which might decisively alter the earth's energy balance. The old puzzle - cloud formation is difficult to model - patently doesn't fit the bill. The factor is at least an order of magnitude too small.

I am admittedly done with, and disinterested in, any back and forth with denialingdongs and ignoramuses trying to besmirch climate science. Their time is over (has been for a while). Inventing "unknown influences and combinations of factors" out of thin air may be somewhat creative, but it adds nothing to debate. There plainly is no there there. "Hahahahaha." For all I care, you can stuff that.

Hahahahaha. I see you are doubling down on stupid.

Just out of curiosity, what would you call the graph that Crick posted. I looked for the provenance but it didn't seem to have a caption.

The stupid boy never answered Todd's request at post 27

"Enlighten us"

He ran away after I made a fool of him over his absurd insistence that I have no idea what the IPCC was saying, when I posted the ENTIRE paragraph, he vanished probably realizing I did understand it. The fool never read in the link I had provided that whole segment that make clear the IPCC admitted it was a statistical modeling construct.

"Explore more fully the probabilistic character of future climate states by developing multiple ensembles of model39 calculations. The climate system is a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of 40 future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of41 the systems future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the42 statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model43 diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential"

bolding mine

Basically saying improve their far into the future guesses for better statistical relevance.

Here is the very next paragraph the fool didn't read:

"Improve the integrated hierarchy of global and regional climate models with emphases on improving the46 simulation of regional impacts and extreme weather events. There is the potential for increased understanding of47 extremes events by employing regional climate models; however, there are also challenges to realise this potential.48 It will require improvements in the understanding of the coupling between the major atmospheric, oceanic, and49 terrestrial systems, and extensive diagnostic modeling and observational studies that evaluate and improve50 simulative performance. A particularly important issue is the adequacy of data needed to attack the question of51 changes in extreme events."

bolding mine

A lot of admissions about needing to improve various states of modeling parameters.

You won't get a real discussion with him, as he is an ideologist.

Yup. The crazy part is that these guys believe that every peer reviewed paper is right, even if it is contradicted by ones before or after it. And these warmer zealots compound their problem by credulously accepting the press releases that typically exaggerate the predictions of catastrophe drawn from these papers.

Wasn't there another one just recently? News flash "Oceans heating 40% faster than previously thought". Only it isn't true, and the headlines seldom get corrected.

Dr. Spencer covered this one at his blog:

Media Reports of +40% Adjustment in Ocean Warming Were Greatly Exaggerated

 

[IanC]

Crick then asked me with a straight face to provide him with the list of unknown natural factors! Hahahahaha. And gave me a graph of known anthropogenic factors.

No, he didn't ask you for a "list of unknown natural factors". He asked:

"What unknown influences and factors Ian?"

That may sound puzzling at first blush, but it is a plausible response, since you so confidently asserted, "The chaotic nature of climate change means that unknown influences and combinations of factors cause unknowable changes of variable magnitude."

And with that babbling of yours it's perfectly reasonable to ask what influences and factors you may have in mind. Because, taking reasonable what you typed, elves might have some influence on our climate, too. We just haven't seen elves lately. So, you seem to be throwing in comments that would destroy science itself. Because with every phenomenon physics describes, there could be a counter vaguely referring to "unknown influences", which might alter future developments. That, however, would be benighted.

And, he didn't give you a "graph of known anthropogenic factors". You can look up your misrepresentation yourself.

And that is (among many other instances of you misrepresenting, seemingly not understanding and distorting science) why ...

And now you are calling me ignorant and misleading?

... I do in fact call you ignorant and misleading. Because that's what describes you best.

Look, Ian, I'd really like to give you the benefit of the doubt, assuming you aren't just another merchant of doubt, harder thought that gets posting by posting. If you had gotten to work and engaged in debate, you'd have thought about Crick's question, and had come up with possible factors (or combinations thereof) the world's leading climate scientists may have overlooked, which might decisively alter the earth's energy balance. The old puzzle - cloud formation is difficult to model - patently doesn't fit the bill. The factor is at least an order of magnitude too small.

I am admittedly done with, and disinterested in, any back and forth with denialingdongs and ignoramuses trying to besmirch climate science. Their time is over (has been for a while). Inventing "unknown influences and combinations of factors" out of thin air may be somewhat creative, but it adds nothing to debate. There plainly is no there there. "Hahahahaha." For all I care, you can stuff that.

Hahahahaha. I see you are doubling down on stupid.

Just out of curiosity, what would you call the graph that Crick posted. I looked for the provenance but it didn't seem to have a caption.

The stupid boy never answered Todd's request at post 27

"Enlighten us"

He ran away after I made a fool of him over his absurd insistence that I have no idea what the IPCC was saying, when I posted the ENTIRE paragraph, he vanished probably realizing I did understand it. The fool never read in the link I had provided that whole segment that make clear the IPCC admitted it was a statistical modeling construct.

"Explore more fully the probabilistic character of future climate states by developing multiple ensembles of model39 calculations. The climate system is a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of 40 future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of41 the systems future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the42 statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model43 diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential"

bolding mine

Basically saying improve their far into the future guesses for better statistical relevance.

Here is the very next paragraph the fool didn't read:

"Improve the integrated hierarchy of global and regional climate models with emphases on improving the46 simulation of regional impacts and extreme weather events. There is the potential for increased understanding of47 extremes events by employing regional climate models; however, there are also challenges to realise this potential.48 It will require improvements in the understanding of the coupling between the major atmospheric, oceanic, and49 terrestrial systems, and extensive diagnostic modeling and observational studies that evaluate and improve50 simulative performance. A particularly important issue is the adequacy of data needed to attack the question of51 changes in extreme events."

bolding mine

A lot of admissions about needing to improve various states of modeling parameters.

You won't get a real discussion with him, as he is an ideologist.

Yup. The crazy part is that these guys believe that every peer reviewed paper is right, even if it is contradicted by ones before or after it. And these warmer zealots compound their problem by credulously accepting the press releases that typically exaggerate the predictions of catastrophe drawn from these papers.

Wasn't there another one just recently? News flash "Oceans heating 40% faster than previously thought". Only it isn't true, and the headlines seldom get corrected.

Dr. Spencer covered this one at his blog:

Media Reports of +40% Adjustment in Ocean Warming Were Greatly Exaggerated

Thanks for that. It's just the latest example of a long line of muddled papers presented in a fashion that can be construed incorrectly. Once the alarmist press release creates the desired headlines of doom, the paper is abandoned like an unused landmine to catch unawares the next internet wanderer.

 

[Crick]

See https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/07/WGI_AR5.Chap_.8_SM.pdf, section 8.SM.2 for an explanation of AR5 radiative forcing calculations.

Let's try this again.

 

[IanC]

Just out of curiosity, what would you call the graph that Crick posted. I looked for the provenance but it didn't seem to have a caption.

I assumed you would have seen the graph so many times that there'd be no need to identify it. That is from AR5 Ian.

And those data are not predictions.

I know it is from AR5. It is similar to the one in AR4.

What piqued my interest is that you said 'not predictions'.

The one part of that graphic that replied to my comment was the aerosol/cloud line. So I feebly tried to find the paper from a few years back that concluded the aerosol effect was smaller than previously thought, and affecting climate sensitivity. There was even a rejuvenating influence on the Iris Effect.

Anyways, here is a SoD article that touches on a lot of the main ideas. Redirect Notice

 

[Crick]

Ian, do you believe the effects of cloud changes and aerosols to be greater than that of CO2 or methane?

 

[IanC]

Ian, do you believe the effects of cloud changes and aerosols to be greater than that of CO2 or methane?

I believe that something other than mankind burning fossil fuels caused both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.

I have remained steadfast against the deniers that cannot believe CO2 has a warming influence just like I refuse to go along with the predictions of doom from the warmers.

I am a skeptic. Climate science has pissed the bed over and over again. They have squandered the banked reputation that properly conducted science built up over decades. Yes medical research has also occasionally crossed the line but when discovered everyone shamed the perpetrators. Climate science protects its transgressors like Michael Mann.

 

[IanC]

Crick then asked me with a straight face to provide him with the list of unknown natural factors! Hahahahaha. And gave me a graph of known anthropogenic factors.

No, he didn't ask you for a "list of unknown natural factors". He asked:

"What unknown influences and factors Ian?"

That may sound puzzling at first blush, but it is a plausible response, since you so confidently asserted, "The chaotic nature of climate change means that unknown influences and combinations of factors cause unknowable changes of variable magnitude."

And with that babbling of yours it's perfectly reasonable to ask what influences and factors you may have in mind. Because, taking reasonable what you typed, elves might have some influence on our climate, too. We just haven't seen elves lately. So, you seem to be throwing in comments that would destroy science itself. Because with every phenomenon physics describes, there could be a counter vaguely referring to "unknown influences", which might alter future developments. That, however, would be benighted.

And, he didn't give you a "graph of known anthropogenic factors". You can look up your misrepresentation yourself.

And that is (among many other instances of you misrepresenting, seemingly not understanding and distorting science) why ...

And now you are calling me ignorant and misleading?

... I do in fact call you ignorant and misleading. Because that's what describes you best.

Look, Ian, I'd really like to give you the benefit of the doubt, assuming you aren't just another merchant of doubt, harder thought that gets posting by posting. If you had gotten to work and engaged in debate, you'd have thought about Crick's question, and had come up with possible factors (or combinations thereof) the world's leading climate scientists may have overlooked, which might decisively alter the earth's energy balance. The old puzzle - cloud formation is difficult to model - patently doesn't fit the bill. The factor is at least an order of magnitude too small.

I am admittedly done with, and disinterested in, any back and forth with denialingdongs and ignoramuses trying to besmirch climate science. Their time is over (has been for a while). Inventing "unknown influences and combinations of factors" out of thin air may be somewhat creative, but it adds nothing to debate. There plainly is no there there. "Hahahahaha." For all I care, you can stuff that.

Hahahahaha. I see you are doubling down on stupid.

Just out of curiosity, what would you call the graph that Crick posted. I looked for the provenance but it didn't seem to have a caption.

The stupid boy never answered Todd's request at post 27

"Enlighten us"

He ran away after I made a fool of him over his absurd insistence that I have no idea what the IPCC was saying, when I posted the ENTIRE paragraph, he vanished probably realizing I did understand it. The fool never read in the link I had provided that whole segment that make clear the IPCC admitted it was a statistical modeling construct.

"Explore more fully the probabilistic character of future climate states by developing multiple ensembles of model39 calculations. The climate system is a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of 40 future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of41 the systems future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the42 statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model43 diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential"

bolding mine

Basically saying improve their far into the future guesses for better statistical relevance.

Here is the very next paragraph the fool didn't read:

"Improve the integrated hierarchy of global and regional climate models with emphases on improving the46 simulation of regional impacts and extreme weather events. There is the potential for increased understanding of47 extremes events by employing regional climate models; however, there are also challenges to realise this potential.48 It will require improvements in the understanding of the coupling between the major atmospheric, oceanic, and49 terrestrial systems, and extensive diagnostic modeling and observational studies that evaluate and improve50 simulative performance. A particularly important issue is the adequacy of data needed to attack the question of51 changes in extreme events."

bolding mine

A lot of admissions about needing to improve various states of modeling parameters.

You won't get a real discussion with him, as he is an ideologist.

Yup. The crazy part is that these guys believe that every peer reviewed paper is right, even if it is contradicted by ones before or after it. And these warmer zealots compound their problem by credulously accepting the press releases that typically exaggerate the predictions of catastrophe drawn from these papers.

Wasn't there another one just recently? News flash "Oceans heating 40% faster than previously thought". Only it isn't true, and the headlines seldom get corrected.

Dr. Spencer covered this one at his blog:

Media Reports of +40% Adjustment in Ocean Warming Were Greatly Exaggerated

I looked through the last week's worth of articles at WUWT. It makes fun of; and shreds another fake climate news story. This time it was another of those bogus Antarctic Ice will drown the world story. Why don't editor's put some effort into making sure that science stories are reasonably correct?

Taking down the latest Washington Post Antarctic scare story on 6x increased ice melt

 

[Sunsettommy]

No, he didn't ask you for a "list of unknown natural factors". He asked:

"What unknown influences and factors Ian?"

That may sound puzzling at first blush, but it is a plausible response, since you so confidently asserted, "The chaotic nature of climate change means that unknown influences and combinations of factors cause unknowable changes of variable magnitude."

And with that babbling of yours it's perfectly reasonable to ask what influences and factors you may have in mind. Because, taking reasonable what you typed, elves might have some influence on our climate, too. We just haven't seen elves lately. So, you seem to be throwing in comments that would destroy science itself. Because with every phenomenon physics describes, there could be a counter vaguely referring to "unknown influences", which might alter future developments. That, however, would be benighted.

And, he didn't give you a "graph of known anthropogenic factors". You can look up your misrepresentation yourself.

And that is (among many other instances of you misrepresenting, seemingly not understanding and distorting science) why ...

... I do in fact call you ignorant and misleading. Because that's what describes you best.

Look, Ian, I'd really like to give you the benefit of the doubt, assuming you aren't just another merchant of doubt, harder thought that gets posting by posting. If you had gotten to work and engaged in debate, you'd have thought about Crick's question, and had come up with possible factors (or combinations thereof) the world's leading climate scientists may have overlooked, which might decisively alter the earth's energy balance. The old puzzle - cloud formation is difficult to model - patently doesn't fit the bill. The factor is at least an order of magnitude too small.

I am admittedly done with, and disinterested in, any back and forth with denialingdongs and ignoramuses trying to besmirch climate science. Their time is over (has been for a while). Inventing "unknown influences and combinations of factors" out of thin air may be somewhat creative, but it adds nothing to debate. There plainly is no there there. "Hahahahaha." For all I care, you can stuff that.

Hahahahaha. I see you are doubling down on stupid.

Just out of curiosity, what would you call the graph that Crick posted. I looked for the provenance but it didn't seem to have a caption.

The stupid boy never answered Todd's request at post 27

"Enlighten us"

He ran away after I made a fool of him over his absurd insistence that I have no idea what the IPCC was saying, when I posted the ENTIRE paragraph, he vanished probably realizing I did understand it. The fool never read in the link I had provided that whole segment that make clear the IPCC admitted it was a statistical modeling construct.

"Explore more fully the probabilistic character of future climate states by developing multiple ensembles of model39 calculations. The climate system is a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of 40 future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of41 the systems future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the42 statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model43 diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential"

bolding mine

Basically saying improve their far into the future guesses for better statistical relevance.

Here is the very next paragraph the fool didn't read:

"Improve the integrated hierarchy of global and regional climate models with emphases on improving the46 simulation of regional impacts and extreme weather events. There is the potential for increased understanding of47 extremes events by employing regional climate models; however, there are also challenges to realise this potential.48 It will require improvements in the understanding of the coupling between the major atmospheric, oceanic, and49 terrestrial systems, and extensive diagnostic modeling and observational studies that evaluate and improve50 simulative performance. A particularly important issue is the adequacy of data needed to attack the question of51 changes in extreme events."

bolding mine

A lot of admissions about needing to improve various states of modeling parameters.

You won't get a real discussion with him, as he is an ideologist.

Yup. The crazy part is that these guys believe that every peer reviewed paper is right, even if it is contradicted by ones before or after it. And these warmer zealots compound their problem by credulously accepting the press releases that typically exaggerate the predictions of catastrophe drawn from these papers.

Wasn't there another one just recently? News flash "Oceans heating 40% faster than previously thought". Only it isn't true, and the headlines seldom get corrected.

Dr. Spencer covered this one at his blog:

Media Reports of +40% Adjustment in Ocean Warming Were Greatly Exaggerated

I looked through the last week's worth of articles at WUWT. It makes fun of; and shreds another fake climate news story. This time it was another of those bogus Antarctic Ice will drown the world story. Why don't editor's put some effort into making sure that science stories are reasonably correct?

Taking down the latest Washington Post Antarctic scare story on 6x increased ice melt

I saw that from the beginning as I am a Moderator at WUWT. I see a lot of science reports every week, many I never post here because I am getting too busy lately.

I had a climate forum that was among the largest in the world that was maliciously shut down by a server, I am now rudderless since I had gobs of stuff posted there with over 100 meteorological website links and all the climate gate links, many science essays, published papers and so on.

I am planning to set up a new one in a month or two, which will allow me to rebuild many of the presentations I had and make regular blog "lite" postings as well. Then I can once again make deeper replies here and elsewhere with the information at hand that grows over time.

 

[IanC]

Hahahahaha. I see you are doubling down on stupid.

Just out of curiosity, what would you call the graph that Crick posted. I looked for the provenance but it didn't seem to have a caption.

The stupid boy never answered Todd's request at post 27

"Enlighten us"

He ran away after I made a fool of him over his absurd insistence that I have no idea what the IPCC was saying, when I posted the ENTIRE paragraph, he vanished probably realizing I did understand it. The fool never read in the link I had provided that whole segment that make clear the IPCC admitted it was a statistical modeling construct.

"Explore more fully the probabilistic character of future climate states by developing multiple ensembles of model39 calculations. The climate system is a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of 40 future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of41 the systems future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the42 statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model43 diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential"

bolding mine

Basically saying improve their far into the future guesses for better statistical relevance.

Here is the very next paragraph the fool didn't read:

"Improve the integrated hierarchy of global and regional climate models with emphases on improving the46 simulation of regional impacts and extreme weather events. There is the potential for increased understanding of47 extremes events by employing regional climate models; however, there are also challenges to realise this potential.48 It will require improvements in the understanding of the coupling between the major atmospheric, oceanic, and49 terrestrial systems, and extensive diagnostic modeling and observational studies that evaluate and improve50 simulative performance. A particularly important issue is the adequacy of data needed to attack the question of51 changes in extreme events."

bolding mine

A lot of admissions about needing to improve various states of modeling parameters.

You won't get a real discussion with him, as he is an ideologist.

Yup. The crazy part is that these guys believe that every peer reviewed paper is right, even if it is contradicted by ones before or after it. And these warmer zealots compound their problem by credulously accepting the press releases that typically exaggerate the predictions of catastrophe drawn from these papers.

Wasn't there another one just recently? News flash "Oceans heating 40% faster than previously thought". Only it isn't true, and the headlines seldom get corrected.

Dr. Spencer covered this one at his blog:

Media Reports of +40% Adjustment in Ocean Warming Were Greatly Exaggerated

I looked through the last week's worth of articles at WUWT. It makes fun of; and shreds another fake climate news story. This time it was another of those bogus Antarctic Ice will drown the world story. Why don't editor's put some effort into making sure that science stories are reasonably correct?

Taking down the latest Washington Post Antarctic scare story on 6x increased ice melt

I saw that from the beginning as I am a Moderator at WUWT. I see a lot of science reports every week, many I never post here because I am getting too busy lately.

I had a climate forum that was among the largest in the world that was maliciously shut down by a server, I am now rudderless since I had gobs of stuff posted there with over 100 meteorological website links and all the climate gate links, many science essays, published papers and so on.

I am planning to set up a new one in a month or two, which will allow me to rebuild many of the presentations I had and make regular blog "lite" postings as well. Then I can once again make deeper replies here and elsewhere with the information at hand that grows over time.

Yes, I have noticed your name on many sites covering years of time since you surfaced here a year ago.

What was your blog called?

 

[Sunsettommy]

The stupid boy never answered Todd's request at post 27

"Enlighten us"

He ran away after I made a fool of him over his absurd insistence that I have no idea what the IPCC was saying, when I posted the ENTIRE paragraph, he vanished probably realizing I did understand it. The fool never read in the link I had provided that whole segment that make clear the IPCC admitted it was a statistical modeling construct.

"Explore more fully the probabilistic character of future climate states by developing multiple ensembles of model39 calculations. The climate system is a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of 40 future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of41 the systems future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the42 statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model43 diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential"

bolding mine

Basically saying improve their far into the future guesses for better statistical relevance.

Here is the very next paragraph the fool didn't read:

"Improve the integrated hierarchy of global and regional climate models with emphases on improving the46 simulation of regional impacts and extreme weather events. There is the potential for increased understanding of47 extremes events by employing regional climate models; however, there are also challenges to realise this potential.48 It will require improvements in the understanding of the coupling between the major atmospheric, oceanic, and49 terrestrial systems, and extensive diagnostic modeling and observational studies that evaluate and improve50 simulative performance. A particularly important issue is the adequacy of data needed to attack the question of51 changes in extreme events."

bolding mine

A lot of admissions about needing to improve various states of modeling parameters.

You won't get a real discussion with him, as he is an ideologist.

Yup. The crazy part is that these guys believe that every peer reviewed paper is right, even if it is contradicted by ones before or after it. And these warmer zealots compound their problem by credulously accepting the press releases that typically exaggerate the predictions of catastrophe drawn from these papers.

Wasn't there another one just recently? News flash "Oceans heating 40% faster than previously thought". Only it isn't true, and the headlines seldom get corrected.

Dr. Spencer covered this one at his blog:

Media Reports of +40% Adjustment in Ocean Warming Were Greatly Exaggerated

I looked through the last week's worth of articles at WUWT. It makes fun of; and shreds another fake climate news story. This time it was another of those bogus Antarctic Ice will drown the world story. Why don't editor's put some effort into making sure that science stories are reasonably correct?

Taking down the latest Washington Post Antarctic scare story on 6x increased ice melt

I saw that from the beginning as I am a Moderator at WUWT. I see a lot of science reports every week, many I never post here because I am getting too busy lately.

I had a climate forum that was among the largest in the world that was maliciously shut down by a server, I am now rudderless since I had gobs of stuff posted there with over 100 meteorological website links and all the climate gate links, many science essays, published papers and so on.

I am planning to set up a new one in a month or two, which will allow me to rebuild many of the presentations I had and make regular blog "lite" postings as well. Then I can once again make deeper replies here and elsewhere with the information at hand that grows over time.

Yes, I have noticed your name on many sites covering years of time since you surfaced here a year ago.

What was your blog called?

It wasn't a blog, it was forum set using myBB software.. It was Global Warming Skeptics.

 

[Crick]

I believe this is the study you were thinking about.

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00376-019-8276-x.pdf

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

"An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5C above pe-industrial levels and related greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty."

The IPCC has released a report during the workup towards AR6 with inputs from all three Working Groups and including a Summary for Policy Makers (SPM). I aim this thread at those who consistently express concern about the cost of measures to reduce GHG emissions and those who minimize the magnitude of the the threat.

The full report may be viewed at Global Warming of 1.5 ºC —

Below are the opening bullets to the SPM

Understanding Global Warming of 1.5°C4
A.1 Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming5 above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate. (high confidence) (Figure SPM.1) {1.2}

A.1.1 Reflecting the long-term warming trend since pre-industrial times, observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) for the decade 2006–2015 was 0.87°C (likely between 0.75°C and 0.99°C)6 higher than the average over the 1850–1900 period (very high confidence). Estimated anthropogenic global warming matches the level of observed warming to within ±20% (likely range). Estimated anthropogenic global warming is currently increasing at 0.2°C (likely between 0.1°C and 0.3°C) per decade due to past and ongoing emissions (high confidence). {1.2.1, Table 1.1, 1.2.4}

A.1.2 Warming greater than the global annual average is being experienced in many land regions and seasons, including two to three times higher in the Arctic. Warming is generally higher over land than over the ocean. (high confidence) {1.2.1, 1.2.2, Figure 1.1, Figure 1.3, 3.3.1, 3.3.2}

A.1.3 Trends in intensity and frequency of some climate and weather extremes have been detected over time spans during which about 0.5°C of global warming occurred (medium confidence). This assessment is based on several lines of evidence, including attribution studies for changes in extremes since 1950. {3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3}

Just as a side note... This just in...

Airlines Issue Weather Waivers for 74 Airports Ahead of Massive Blizzard

We are entering peak winter storm season, and — right on schedule — the worst winter storm of the season is making its way across the US. Airlines have already started issuing wide-ranging change fee waivers to allow flexible travelers the opportunity to reschedule their flights to avoid the mess.

Now just imagine if the world actually was warming up 1.5 degrees C. That would mean if the outside temperature was 32 degrees F., with a 0.8 degree C. increase or 33.444 degrees F. more, it would be 66 degrees and no snow, but as see from this weather event, the cricket is full of shit along with the IPCC...Now we do know that the IPCC wants to steal money from Rich countries then give some to the poor countries and pocket all what is left of the billions of dollars in energy taxes. Are you part of the IPCC , you sure seem to be as crooked as they are...

Just cant get more stupid than a liberal, well maybe a female liberal can be more stupid...

Convert Units of Temperature - Celsius, Fahrenheit, Kelvin

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5C above pe-industrial levels and related greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty."

The IPCC has released a report during the workup towards AR6 with inputs from all three Working Groups and including a Summary for Policy Makers (SPM). I aim this thread at those who consistently express concern about the cost of measures to reduce GHG emissions and those who minimize the magnitude of the the threat.

The full report may be viewed at Global Warming of 1.5 ºC —

Below are the opening bullets to the SPM

Understanding Global Warming of 1.5°C4
A.1 Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming5 above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate. (high confidence) (Figure SPM.1) {1.2}

A.1.1 Reflecting the long-term warming trend since pre-industrial times, observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) for the decade 2006–2015 was 0.87°C (likely between 0.75°C and 0.99°C)6 higher than the average over the 1850–1900 period (very high confidence). Estimated anthropogenic global warming matches the level of observed warming to within ±20% (likely range). Estimated anthropogenic global warming is currently increasing at 0.2°C (likely between 0.1°C and 0.3°C) per decade due to past and ongoing emissions (high confidence). {1.2.1, Table 1.1, 1.2.4}

A.1.2 Warming greater than the global annual average is being experienced in many land regions and seasons, including two to three times higher in the Arctic. Warming is generally higher over land than over the ocean. (high confidence) {1.2.1, 1.2.2, Figure 1.1, Figure 1.3, 3.3.1, 3.3.2}

A.1.3 Trends in intensity and frequency of some climate and weather extremes have been detected over time spans during which about 0.5°C of global warming occurred (medium confidence). This assessment is based on several lines of evidence, including attribution studies for changes in extremes since 1950. {3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3}

Just as a side note... This just in...

Airlines Issue Weather Waivers for 74 Airports Ahead of Massive Blizzard

We are entering peak winter storm season, and — right on schedule — the worst winter storm of the season is making its way across the US. Airlines have already started issuing wide-ranging change fee waivers to allow flexible travelers the opportunity to reschedule their flights to avoid the mess.

Now just imagine if the world actually was warming up 1.5 degrees C. That would mean if the outside temperature was 32 degrees F., with a 0.8 degree C. increase or 33.444 degrees F. more, it would be 66 degrees and no snow, but as see from this weather event, the cricket is full of shit along with the IPCC...Now we do know that the IPCC wants to steal money from Rich countries then give some to the poor countries and pocket all what is left of the billions of dollars in energy taxes. Are you part of the IPCC , you sure seem to be as crooked as they are...

Just cant get more stupid than a liberal, well maybe a female liberal can be more stupid...

Convert Units of Temperature - Celsius, Fahrenheit, Kelvin

Now just imagine if the world actually was warming up 1.5 degrees C. That would mean if the outside temperature was 32 degrees F., with a 0.8 degree C. increase or 33.444 degrees F. more, it would be 66 degrees and no snow,

Ummm…..a 0.8C increase from 32 degrees Fahrenheit would make the temperature 33.44 degrees Fahrenheit, not 66 degrees Fahrenheit.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

"An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5C above pe-industrial levels and related greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty."

The IPCC has released a report during the workup towards AR6 with inputs from all three Working Groups and including a Summary for Policy Makers (SPM). I aim this thread at those who consistently express concern about the cost of measures to reduce GHG emissions and those who minimize the magnitude of the the threat.

The full report may be viewed at Global Warming of 1.5 ºC —

Below are the opening bullets to the SPM

Understanding Global Warming of 1.5°C4
A.1 Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming5 above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate. (high confidence) (Figure SPM.1) {1.2}

A.1.1 Reflecting the long-term warming trend since pre-industrial times, observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) for the decade 2006–2015 was 0.87°C (likely between 0.75°C and 0.99°C)6 higher than the average over the 1850–1900 period (very high confidence). Estimated anthropogenic global warming matches the level of observed warming to within ±20% (likely range). Estimated anthropogenic global warming is currently increasing at 0.2°C (likely between 0.1°C and 0.3°C) per decade due to past and ongoing emissions (high confidence). {1.2.1, Table 1.1, 1.2.4}

A.1.2 Warming greater than the global annual average is being experienced in many land regions and seasons, including two to three times higher in the Arctic. Warming is generally higher over land than over the ocean. (high confidence) {1.2.1, 1.2.2, Figure 1.1, Figure 1.3, 3.3.1, 3.3.2}

A.1.3 Trends in intensity and frequency of some climate and weather extremes have been detected over time spans during which about 0.5°C of global warming occurred (medium confidence). This assessment is based on several lines of evidence, including attribution studies for changes in extremes since 1950. {3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3}

Just as a side note... This just in...

Airlines Issue Weather Waivers for 74 Airports Ahead of Massive Blizzard

We are entering peak winter storm season, and — right on schedule — the worst winter storm of the season is making its way across the US. Airlines have already started issuing wide-ranging change fee waivers to allow flexible travelers the opportunity to reschedule their flights to avoid the mess.

Now just imagine if the world actually was warming up 1.5 degrees C. That would mean if the outside temperature was 32 degrees F., with a 0.8 degree C. increase or 33.444 degrees F. more, it would be 66 degrees and no snow, but as see from this weather event, the cricket is full of shit along with the IPCC...Now we do know that the IPCC wants to steal money from Rich countries then give some to the poor countries and pocket all what is left of the billions of dollars in energy taxes. Are you part of the IPCC , you sure seem to be as crooked as they are...

Just cant get more stupid than a liberal, well maybe a female liberal can be more stupid...

Convert Units of Temperature - Celsius, Fahrenheit, Kelvin

Now just imagine if the world actually was warming up 1.5 degrees C. That would mean if the outside temperature was 32 degrees F., with a 0.8 degree C. increase or 33.444 degrees F. more, it would be 66 degrees and no snow,

Ummm…..a 0.8C increase from 32 degrees Fahrenheit would make the temperature 33.44 degrees Fahrenheit, not 66 degrees Fahrenheit.

either way, the temperature is above the freezing mark, yet this is going to be the worst winter storm of the season...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5C above pe-industrial levels and related greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty."

The IPCC has released a report during the workup towards AR6 with inputs from all three Working Groups and including a Summary for Policy Makers (SPM). I aim this thread at those who consistently express concern about the cost of measures to reduce GHG emissions and those who minimize the magnitude of the the threat.

The full report may be viewed at Global Warming of 1.5 ºC —

Below are the opening bullets to the SPM

Understanding Global Warming of 1.5°C4
A.1 Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming5 above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate. (high confidence) (Figure SPM.1) {1.2}

A.1.1 Reflecting the long-term warming trend since pre-industrial times, observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) for the decade 2006–2015 was 0.87°C (likely between 0.75°C and 0.99°C)6 higher than the average over the 1850–1900 period (very high confidence). Estimated anthropogenic global warming matches the level of observed warming to within ±20% (likely range). Estimated anthropogenic global warming is currently increasing at 0.2°C (likely between 0.1°C and 0.3°C) per decade due to past and ongoing emissions (high confidence). {1.2.1, Table 1.1, 1.2.4}

A.1.2 Warming greater than the global annual average is being experienced in many land regions and seasons, including two to three times higher in the Arctic. Warming is generally higher over land than over the ocean. (high confidence) {1.2.1, 1.2.2, Figure 1.1, Figure 1.3, 3.3.1, 3.3.2}

A.1.3 Trends in intensity and frequency of some climate and weather extremes have been detected over time spans during which about 0.5°C of global warming occurred (medium confidence). This assessment is based on several lines of evidence, including attribution studies for changes in extremes since 1950. {3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3}

Just as a side note... This just in...

Airlines Issue Weather Waivers for 74 Airports Ahead of Massive Blizzard

We are entering peak winter storm season, and — right on schedule — the worst winter storm of the season is making its way across the US. Airlines have already started issuing wide-ranging change fee waivers to allow flexible travelers the opportunity to reschedule their flights to avoid the mess.

Now just imagine if the world actually was warming up 1.5 degrees C. That would mean if the outside temperature was 32 degrees F., with a 0.8 degree C. increase or 33.444 degrees F. more, it would be 66 degrees and no snow, but as see from this weather event, the cricket is full of shit along with the IPCC...Now we do know that the IPCC wants to steal money from Rich countries then give some to the poor countries and pocket all what is left of the billions of dollars in energy taxes. Are you part of the IPCC , you sure seem to be as crooked as they are...

Just cant get more stupid than a liberal, well maybe a female liberal can be more stupid...

Convert Units of Temperature - Celsius, Fahrenheit, Kelvin

Now just imagine if the world actually was warming up 1.5 degrees C. That would mean if the outside temperature was 32 degrees F., with a 0.8 degree C. increase or 33.444 degrees F. more, it would be 66 degrees and no snow,

Ummm…..a 0.8C increase from 32 degrees Fahrenheit would make the temperature 33.44 degrees Fahrenheit, not 66 degrees Fahrenheit.

either way, the temperature is above the freezing mark, yet this is going to be the worst winter storm of the season...

either way, the temperature is above the freezing mark

Yes, any time you add a positive number to the freezing point, the result will be above the freezing point.
If that's your criteria, 33.44F is identical to 66F.