New IIPC report leaked!

[westwall]

Reality simply refuses to cooperate with the flawed model predictions..

They are not models. The two studies listed earlier are both based on observational data.

btw. I think you will find both melting glaciers and melting Antartic Ice are increasing the sea level - and are cited as being major causes of rising sea levels by both studies linked above.

You didn't read them did you......

"The Maps, diagrams and data section of the Climate guide includes scenarios regarding the impacts of climate change to the hydrological cycle and decomposition of leaf litter, for example. These scenarios are based on the results of the impact models. In the impact models, natural phenomena, moisturisation and drying of soil for example, have been depicted with mathematical equations. These equations are used to calculated changes in the values under inspection in relation to time. The results of the models depend decisively on the definition of the model or which factors and processes have been taken into consideration in the description of the phenomenon. In addition, results are affected by the speed these factors are estimated to change. Naturally, climate data, estimates of future precipitation and air temperature used in the models have an effect on the results of the impact models.

The scenarios in the Climate guide regarding the impacts of climate change represent an attempt to describe alternative future views for specific characteristic of specific natural phenomena. The scenarios should not be expected to provide an extensive or precise description of future events, as such a description is impossible to produce."



That was the first "study". Pure modelling at its finest. I havn't bothered to translate the other one yet, but I have no doubt it will be the same.

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

the Climate guide includes scenarios

Most studies also contain predictions of future trends or scenarios - that does not mean the historical results are not based on observational data. It says that it "includes" scenarios - not that it is all scenarios.

I'm always surprised things are like this are so hard for you guys to understand.

 

[westwall]

Westwall -

the Climate guide includes scenarios

Most studies also contain predictions of future trends or scenarios - that does not mean the historical results are not based on observational data. It says that it "includes" scenarios - not that it is all scenarios.

I'm always surprised things are like this are so hard for you guys to understand.

The "study" was based on observations yes, but their conclusions are all based on models.
Funny how you don't seem to understand the difference. Or maybe not...

 

[Saigon]

The "study" was based on observations yes,

Exactly.

Which makes this claim:

Pure modelling at its finest

an absolute nonsense.

 

[SSDD]

You can't help yourself can you. Why you feel the need to put words in the mouths of people that they never said is beyond my understanding. Is it only perpetrated by climatologists?

It's the mark of a true idiot and he is well and truely marked. They really can't help it. They have nothing of any importance to say on the topic, and they can't answer the questions put to them so they disregard the actual arguments being made, and simply make up some meaningles gibberish as they go.

 

[SSDD]

You didn't read them did you......

"The Maps, diagrams and data section of the Climate guide includes scenarios regarding the impacts of climate change to the hydrological cycle and decomposition of leaf litter, for example. These scenarios are based on the results of the impact models. In the impact models, natural phenomena, moisturisation and drying of soil for example, have been depicted with mathematical equations. These equations are used to calculated changes in the values under inspection in relation to time. The results of the models depend decisively on the definition of the model or which factors and processes have been taken into consideration in the description of the phenomenon. In addition, results are affected by the speed these factors are estimated to change. Naturally, climate data, estimates of future precipitation and air temperature used in the models have an effect on the results of the impact models.

The scenarios in the Climate guide regarding the impacts of climate change represent an attempt to describe alternative future views for specific characteristic of specific natural phenomena. The scenarios should not be expected to provide an extensive or precise description of future events, as such a description is impossible to produce."

In the world of climate science...senarios, models, and mathematical equations are observation...reality won't cooperate so they ignore it completely. It is routine these days for model output to be quoted by climate science as actual observed, measured data.

 

[Saigon]

senarios, models, and mathematical equations are observation

The word is "scenario", and that is patently nonsense.

Again I am surprised that people are not aware of this, but most events that have already taken place are measured by observational methods - future predictions are based on models.

It always delights me to see posters such as yourself demanding observational data on what will happen in the 22nd century, but if you think about it, you may come to understand why they aren't always available!!

 

[SSDD]

senarios, models, and mathematical equations are observation

The word is "scenario", and that is patently nonsense.

Again I am surprised that people are not aware of this, but most events that have already taken place are measured by observational methods - future predictions are based on models.

It always delights me to see posters such as yourself demanding observational data on what will happen in the 22nd century, but if you think about it, you may come to understand why they aren't always available!!

If you must be something, be something usefull. A spell checker on a board where people quickly type their comments and move on to other things is useless. Be a dictionary if you must be something and perhaps learn context. In the world of science, scenario has a particular meaning, as follows:

A scenario is an outline of an hypothesized chain of events. The term is used to denote (1) a forecast based on loose assumptions rather than on a more formal inference from the past or (2) a synopsis of a proposed course of action. 3) a sequence of possible events to be studied in a system of interest.

The scenario spoken of was a prediction based on model output...you very often don't know what words mean, or which definition applies to the context in which it is being used.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

If I don't know what the word means and you do - why am I correcting your spelling?!

Scenarios are about the FUTURE. Observations are only available about the PAST.

Your English is quite limited, SSDD, and I'm sure you are aware of that yourself. It was only a couple of weeks back that you all but admitted that you hadn't known what the terms 'left wing' amd 'right wing' meant, remember? You don't recall claiming that conservatism was neither left wing nor right wing?!

And yes, I know this will unleash another swathe of bluffing & backflips!

 

[SSDD]

. SSDD -

If I don't know what the word means and you do - why am I correcting your spelling?!

You think spelling a word means that you know what it means? Obviously you got that one wrong also.

Scenarios are about the FUTURE. Observations are only available about the PAST. [\quote]

Even when you are given a definition you don't know what the word means.

. It was only a couple of weeks back that you all but admitted that you hadn't known what the terms 'left wing' amd 'right wing' meant, remember? [\Quote]

I remember you losing that one badly, starting a separate thread and then losing again because how weren't bright enough to understand that you lost the first time.

You don't recall claiming that conservatism was neither left wing nor right wing?![\quote]

I recall having to point out to you that both left and right wing governments are large and overbearing while a conservative government is by definition small and limited in its scope. You were unable to understand that and that is why you lost so badly. So are you now trying to change the subject to hide your ignorance again?

 

[skookerasbil]

You didn't read them did you......

"The Maps, diagrams and data section of the Climate guide includes scenarios regarding the impacts of climate change to the hydrological cycle and decomposition of leaf litter, for example. These scenarios are based on the results of the impact models. In the impact models, natural phenomena, moisturisation and drying of soil for example, have been depicted with mathematical equations. These equations are used to calculated changes in the values under inspection in relation to time. The results of the models depend decisively on the definition of the model or which factors and processes have been taken into consideration in the description of the phenomenon. In addition, results are affected by the speed these factors are estimated to change. Naturally, climate data, estimates of future precipitation and air temperature used in the models have an effect on the results of the impact models.

The scenarios in the Climate guide regarding the impacts of climate change represent an attempt to describe alternative future views for specific characteristic of specific natural phenomena. The scenarios should not be expected to provide an extensive or precise description of future events, as such a description is impossible to produce."

In the world of climate science...senarios, models, and mathematical equations are observation...reality won't cooperate so they ignore it completely. It is routine these days for model output to be quoted by climate science as actual observed, measured data.

the "models" level of reliability?


Z E R O


http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/the-models-are-wrong



Since Climategate back in 2009, not even the lamestream media buys this BS.

 

[westwall]

The "study" was based on observations yes,

Exactly.

Which makes this claim:

Pure modelling at its finest

an absolute nonsense.

On the contrary, the modeling used base line numbers to begin, then ignored observations for the rest of the duration of the models. That's why the models have failed so utterly.

 

[westwall]

You didn't read them did you......

"The Maps, diagrams and data section of the Climate guide includes scenarios regarding the impacts of climate change to the hydrological cycle and decomposition of leaf litter, for example. These scenarios are based on the results of the impact models. In the impact models, natural phenomena, moisturisation and drying of soil for example, have been depicted with mathematical equations. These equations are used to calculated changes in the values under inspection in relation to time. The results of the models depend decisively on the definition of the model or which factors and processes have been taken into consideration in the description of the phenomenon. In addition, results are affected by the speed these factors are estimated to change. Naturally, climate data, estimates of future precipitation and air temperature used in the models have an effect on the results of the impact models.

The scenarios in the Climate guide regarding the impacts of climate change represent an attempt to describe alternative future views for specific characteristic of specific natural phenomena. The scenarios should not be expected to provide an extensive or precise description of future events, as such a description is impossible to produce."

In the world of climate science...senarios, models, and mathematical equations are observation...reality won't cooperate so they ignore it completely. It is routine these days for model output to be quoted by climate science as actual observed, measured data.

Yes. This is true. Just two years ago a "major" study was published that was ...wait for it.... a model that used the findings of OTHER models as its base line beginning! There was ZERO empirical data used in the "major" study.

What a farce.

 

[westwall]

senarios, models, and mathematical equations are observation

The word is "scenario", and that is patently nonsense.

Again I am surprised that people are not aware of this, but most events that have already taken place are measured by observational methods - future predictions are based on models.

It always delights me to see posters such as yourself demanding observational data on what will happen in the 22nd century, but if you think about it, you may come to understand why they aren't always available!!

Wrong. Future predictions can be based on models (of course the weathermans models are the best known and they are good for 48 hours at the maximum), but the best predictions are based on reviews of past events and correlating those with current conditions that are being observed and determining if current conditions are the same as what initiated the events of the past.

Those predictions work quite well. No computer model in 30 years has accurately predicted anything.

 

[Oddball]

I dont remember if there were threads on the actual leak but there were certainly threads on the information that came out of it, such as increased weight given to solar influence, or the walkback on climate sensitivity estimates.

Didn't think the goalposts were going to move themselves, didja?

 

[ScienceRocks]

The "study" was based on observations yes,

Exactly.

Which makes this claim:

Pure modelling at its finest

an absolute nonsense.

On the contrary, the modeling used base line numbers to begin, then ignored observations for the rest of the duration of the models. That's why the models have failed so utterly.

They failed because their understanding is incomplete. We're finding out that the oceans are more complex then we once thought.

 

[ScienceRocks]

You didn't read them did you......

"The Maps, diagrams and data section of the Climate guide includes scenarios regarding the impacts of climate change to the hydrological cycle and decomposition of leaf litter, for example. These scenarios are based on the results of the impact models. In the impact models, natural phenomena, moisturisation and drying of soil for example, have been depicted with mathematical equations. These equations are used to calculated changes in the values under inspection in relation to time. The results of the models depend decisively on the definition of the model or which factors and processes have been taken into consideration in the description of the phenomenon. In addition, results are affected by the speed these factors are estimated to change. Naturally, climate data, estimates of future precipitation and air temperature used in the models have an effect on the results of the impact models.

The scenarios in the Climate guide regarding the impacts of climate change represent an attempt to describe alternative future views for specific characteristic of specific natural phenomena. The scenarios should not be expected to provide an extensive or precise description of future events, as such a description is impossible to produce."

In the world of climate science...senarios, models, and mathematical equations are observation...reality won't cooperate so they ignore it completely. It is routine these days for model output to be quoted by climate science as actual observed, measured data.

the "models" level of reliability?


Z E R O


The models are wrong | Behind The Black



Since Climategate back in 2009, not even the lamestream media buys this BS.

That's what happens when you try to model something without completely understanding. LOL. Doesn't mean the data going in as input is wrong.

 

[Autodidact_33]

It is probably true that the time period in which we live is probably the most unique event in the accepted history of the Earth, there is no precedent for a species being able to effect the ecology of the entire planet; life has never encountered such a situation before. Even if global warming is true, and it still has not been entirely proven I believe; there are numerous other impacts civilization is having on the planet's environment such as radioactive contamination from nuclear accidents and bombs tests and carcinogens being released into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. Is it not a fact that the statistical rates of people falling ill from cancer began to steadily increase as the twentieth century progressed; is there a possibility that it is linked to technological civilization and its impact on the Earth's ecology. We might be living in the most important and cataclysmic period in human history if not the history of life on Earth. Let us hope that future generations don't inherit a poisoned, dying world which is harsh to the existence of complex lifeforms; that humanity will be the first species in the planet's history which triggered an extinction level event where even he may perish. If this is true; then these issues are probably the most profound and urgent issues confronting all of humanity. Will humanity still exist in ten thousand years or even a thousand; what is the fate of our species?

 

[westwall]

Exactly.

Which makes this claim:



an absolute nonsense.

On the contrary, the modeling used base line numbers to begin, then ignored observations for the rest of the duration of the models. That's why the models have failed so utterly.

They failed because their understanding is incomplete. We're finding out that the oceans are more complex then we once thought.

EVERYTHING is more complex than they thought...

 

[westwall]

It is probably true that the time period in which we live is probably the most unique event in the accepted history of the Earth, there is no precedent for a species being able to effect the ecology of the entire planet; life has never encountered such a situation before. Even if global warming is true, and it still has not been entirely proven I believe; there are numerous other impacts civilization is having on the planet's environment such as radioactive contamination from nuclear accidents and bombs tests and carcinogens being released into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. Is it not a fact that the statistical rates of people falling ill from cancer began to steadily increase as the twentieth century progressed; is there a possibility that it is linked to technological civilization and its impact on the Earth's ecology. We might be living in the most important and cataclysmic period in human history if not the history of life on Earth. Let us hope that future generations don't inherit a poisoned, dying world which is harsh to the existence of complex lifeforms; that humanity will be the first species in the planet's history which triggered an extinction level event where even he may perish. If this is true; then these issues are probably the most profound and urgent issues confronting all of humanity. Will humanity still exist in ten thousand years or even a thousand; what is the fate of our species?

What a load of crap.