@KC_Hokie: That's the thing though, the IPCC doesn't really make predictions; they make models, which say in scenario 'x', the climate will change in 'y' fashion. The IPCC also illustrates the "multi-model mean," which averages together all of the individual model simulation runs. This average makes for an easy comparison with the observational data; however, there's no reason to believe the climate will follow that average path, especially in the short-term. If natural factors act to amplify human-caused global surface warming, as they did in the 1990s, the climate is likely to warm faster than the model average in the short-term. If natural factors act to dampen global surface warming, as they have in the 2000s, the climate is likely to warm more slowly than the model average.
When many model simulations are averaged together, the random natural variability in the individual model runs cancel out, and the steady human-caused global warming trend remains left over. But in reality the climate behaves like a single model simulation run, not like the average of all model runs.
Their models were all wrong because they don't understand the real impact of CO2. They don't understand climate...the science is in it's infancy.
And when your models are wrong over and over there is something with your inputs. In this case it's CO2 and climate sensitivity.
The models weren't supposed to be predictions, the models only say if x happens the climate changes in y fashion. The made a few of those models. and also released an average of them, and skeptics use that to say the IPCC is wrong, even though they never made any prediction and the average isn't supposed to be one.
Have you actually read an IPCC report? I have and they make all sorts of predictions with commentary.
@KC_Hokie: That's the thing though, the IPCC doesn't really make predictions; they make models, which say in scenario 'x', the climate will change in 'y' fashion. The IPCC also illustrates the "multi-model mean," which averages together all of the individual model simulation runs. This average makes for an easy comparison with the observational data; however, there's no reason to believe the climate will follow that average path, especially in the short-term. If natural factors act to amplify human-caused global surface warming, as they did in the 1990s, the climate is likely to warm faster than the model average in the short-term. If natural factors act to dampen global surface warming, as they have in the 2000s, the climate is likely to warm more slowly than the model average.
When many model simulations are averaged together, the random natural variability in the individual model runs cancel out, and the steady human-caused global warming trend remains left over. But in reality the climate behaves like a single model simulation run, not like the average of all model runs.
Their models were all wrong because they don't understand the real impact of CO2. They don't understand climate...the science is in it's infancy.
And when your models are wrong over and over there is something with your inputs. In this case it's CO2 and climate sensitivity.
@KC_Hokie: Those are the observations, not the predictions. Thanks for amusing us all with your inability to read graphs, though.
The argument is whether the IPCC was way off or not. And they obviously were.
Starting with graphs that start in the 1950s and go to 2035 are laughable. The argument is 1990 (first report) to present. I love the way that time period is only about 25% of the first graph with more 'predicted' crap following for 25 years.
I love the way these types of people defend past bad prediction with 'trends' of more predicted data.
Come back to reality not fantasy!
Read the fucking article, then come back to me.
It's not actually based on facts since the IPCC's predictions are wrong. They are arguing the IPCC is right because future predictions match their commentary.
It's a retarded and unscientific argument. It's intellectually dishonest to ignore actual data and fallacies (in the case IPCC) and create fantasy doom and gloom predictions instead.
No wonder the percentage of people in first world countries no longer trust these people nor believe humans drive the climate.
That's not what it's arguing at all. Your inability to comprehend even the most simple things is really baffling.
Commentary from some liberal newspaper doesn't change the facts and data. Humans aren't driving climate and there is nothing unusual about current temperature. The doom and gloom predictions of the past were all wrong.
People as a whole just don't listen to the doom and gloom alarmism anymore. Why? Because none of the past predictions were even close.
@KC_Hokie: Those are the observations, not the predictions. Thanks for amusing us all with your inability to read graphs, though.
The argument is whether the IPCC was way off or not. And they obviously were.
Starting with graphs that start in the 1950s and go to 2035 are laughable. The argument is 1990 (first report) to present. I love the way that time period is only about 25% of the first graph with more 'predicted' crap following for 25 years.
I love the way these types of people defend past bad prediction with 'trends' of more predicted data.
Come back to reality not fantasy!
Read the fucking article, then come back to me.
It's not actually based on facts since the IPCC's predictions are wrong. They are arguing the IPCC is right because future predictions match their commentary.
It's a retarded and unscientific argument. It's intellectually dishonest to ignore actual data and fallacies (in the case IPCC) and create fantasy doom and gloom predictions instead.
No wonder the percentage of people in first world countries no longer trust these people nor believe humans drive the climate.
@KC_Hokie: Those are the observations, not the predictions. Thanks for amusing us all with your inability to read graphs, though.
The argument is whether the IPCC was way off or not. And they obviously were.
Starting with graphs that start in the 1950s and go to 2035 are laughable. The argument is 1990 (first report) to present. I love the way that time period is only about 25% of the first graph with more 'predicted' crap following for 25 years.
I love the way these types of people defend past bad prediction with 'trends' of more predicted data.
@KC_Hokie: My god... how anyone can be this dense is really beyond me. You're not even trying to debunk the arguments the article put forward, you just dismiss it and than ramble on about stuff nobody said.
I'm not...the second I saw one of their graphs started in the 1970s I laughed and stopped reading. The first IPCC report didn't even start unit 1990.
Every IPCC prediction was wrong and some way off because they assumed CO2 is more powerful than it is. So the reality of CO2 increase and temperatures doesn't fit the notion humans are 'accelerating' temperature.
Every IPCC prediction was wrong and some way off because they assumed CO2 is more powerful than it is. So the reality of CO2 increase and temperatures doesn't fit the notion humans are 'accelerating' temperature.
Log in to comment