New IPCC report is out

[_Analytics]

The article completely supports my point. All the doom is based on computer models. Models which remain untested, the excuse for which is a huge time lag. And that isn't to say this isn't the truth of the situation. The models could be accurate, although they can't all be accurate, but there could be an accurate one in the mix somewhere. But if there is no way to test the models until decades down the road, that's a problem. A big problem. It's not good science to base real-world decisions on faith. As an engineer, if I made decisions like that I'd be thrown in jail. The idea of upending the world's economy on the current body of work is patently irresponsible....

Of course such models can be tested. An approach a data scientist might take would be to create and calibrate a model based only on data that was collected through, say, 2006 (the year An Inconvenient Truth came out). Based upon that data, forecast what the climate would be through 2018. How good of a job did it do?

Or if you wanted to be more sophisticated, take it back even further. Pretend the date is 1998, and you are only using data available then to train a model to forecast the climate in 2008. To validate the model, see how well it fits what happened in 2008. After the model is validated, do a final test and forecast it all the way out to 2018 and see how well it fits then.

That train/validate/test approach is how a simple statistical forecast would be done. However, I'd expect a climate model to be remarkably better, because rather than just looking for statistical relationships between a target variable and independent variables, it is based upon the known underlying physics of the system.

Quoting Steven Pinker, "Anthropogenic climate change is the most vigorously challenged scientific hypothesis in history. By now, all the major challenges—such as that global temperatures have stopped rising, that they only seem to be rising because they were measured in urban heat islands, or that they really are rising but only because the sun is getting hotter—have been refuted."

We aren't talking about a coalition between a small group of underfunded Ivory Tower pointy heads making a coalition with communists and tree huggers to destroy the economy because they are upset Al Gore lost an election. We are talking about the most carefully and vigorously studied scientific hypothesis in history.

Aggressively dealing with the reality of this issue won't upend the world economy--retooling the economy to run off of clean energy would be an incredible economic boon.

[_SteelHead]

But Wolf Creek Ski resort in Co. is opening this weekend. Checkmate global warming believers.

[_Res Ipsa]

And still no link. The desperate attempt to provide easily supplied evidence is sad.

You already know the link. I think you and Morley, et al, are lying about not finding the source I cut/pasted from. It comes right up on Google. Y'all are trying to setup another "gotcha" trap. I give the link, then you ridicule the source. Oh it's breitbart, it's federalist, whatever, they're hacks, all you can do is parrot your evil masters, etc, etc. I'll drop the link eventually. I could have just linked it before, but knew nobody would actually read it. Just like nobody's reading Lindzen's lecture. Y'all want to do this ad hominem appeal to authority thing. So I paraphrased the same argument. But then it delves into all this.

Dude, you really need to own up to your own crap. Nobody needs to set you up. You do it to yourself every single time. Given what you’ve done here, accusing me of lying is hilarious.

You get, right, that no one has to discredit your source? If you have one. If the source left off the last sentence, then it’s guilty of fraud. If your source has to be that dishonest to make a point, why in the world would anyone trust it?

Still waiting.

[_Water Dog]

Yawn @ RI.

Since you know what I mean to say better than I do, I see no point in continuing.

[_canpakes]

Yawn @ RI.

Since you know what I mean to say better than I do, I see no point in continuing.

Hey, that’s OK. Have a great evening.

[_Water Dog]

Of course such models can be tested. An approach a data scientist might take would be to create and calibrate a model based only on data that was collected through, say, 2006 (the year An Inconvenient Truth came out). Based upon that data, forecast what the climate would be through 2018. How good of a job did it do?

I am aware, this is my point. The models have done a very poor job.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05 ... s-plummet/

Ever since December temperatures in the Arctic have consistently been lower than minus 20 C. In April the extent of Arctic sea ice was back to where it was in April 13 years ago. Furthermore, whereas in 2008 most of the ice was extremely thin, this year most has been at least two metres thick. The Greenland ice cap last winter increased in volume faster than at any time for years.

As for those record temperatures brought in 2016 by an exceptionally strong El Niño, the satellites now show that in recent months global temperatures have plummeted by more that 0.6 degrees: just as happened 17 years ago after a similarly strong El Niño had also made 1998 the “hottest year on record”.

This means the global temperature trend has now shown no further warming for 19 years. But the BBC won’t be telling us any of this. And we are still stuck with that insanely damaging Climate Change Act, which in this election will scarcely get a mention.

The situation with the ipcc report is even worse as it is a political interpretation of essentially all models.

[Guest]

The models have done a very poor job.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05 ... s-plummet/

Ever since December temperatures in the Arctic have consistently been lower than minus 20 C. In April the extent of Arctic sea ice was back to where it was in April 13 years ago. Furthermore, whereas in 2008 most of the ice was extremely thin, this year most has been at least two metres thick. The Greenland ice cap last winter increased in volume faster than at any time for years.

As for those record temperatures brought in 2016 by an exceptionally strong El Niño, the satellites now show that in recent months global temperatures have plummeted by more that 0.6 degrees: just as happened 17 years ago after a similarly strong El Niño had also made 1998 the “hottest year on record”.

This means the global temperature trend has now shown no further warming for 19 years. But the BBC won’t be telling us any of this. And we are still stuck with that insanely damaging Climate Change Act, which in this election will scarcely get a mention.

The situation with the ipcc report is even worse as it is a political interpretation of essentially all models.

Geez, Dog. You’ve got to learn to quit while you’re behind. Now you’re just looking to trash your credibility further.

The Daily Wire makes wild claims about climate change based on no evidence
Analysis of "Global Quackery: Earth Has Not Warmed For Past 19 Years, New Study Finds"
Published in The Daily Wire, by Joseph Curl on 8 May 2017

Eight scientists analyzed the article and estimated its overall scientific credibility to be ‘very low’.
A majority of reviewers tagged the article as: Biased, Cherry-picking, Flawed reasoning, Inaccurate, Inappropriate backing, Misleading.

SUMMARY

The title of this Daily Wire article inaccurately claims that global temperature has not warmed over the past 19 years—in direct contradiction with observations—and the article provides no evidence in support of this bold claim.

The article relies, for its first section, on a Telegraph article (analyzed separately here) that is flawed and itself based on claims from a blog post referring to data from the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI). But DMI scientists explain that the article “fundamentally misrepresents both our research and the operational data products we provide”.

The second section quotes an article in the UK tabloid Daily Star. It claims that an imminent ice age is coming, based on a misrepresentation of the Sun’s influence on the climate that we have already covered in an earlier Climate Feedback review:

In that review, Prof. Michael Lockwood explained, “The whole argument rests on the incorrect myth that the Maunder minimum caused a ‘mini ice age’ and uses that name to draw specious implications and conclusions.” Georg Feulner also noted that “the scientists mentioned in the article have not predicted a ‘mini ice-age’, but an extended period of low solar activity similar to the 17th-century Maunder Minimum. The Maunder Minimum falls into a more extended period of somewhat cooler climate conditions termed the ‘Little Ice Age’ (although this was no true ‘ice age’). It has thus become rather fashionable to claim that the ‘Little Ice Age’ was caused by low solar activity, but this is not what the science says.”

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/ ... aily-wire/

[_canpakes]

And more ...

The Telegraph published a brief article by Christopher Booker discussing recent Arctic temperatures and sea ice cover in the context of climate change. It is largely based on claims made in a blog post that refers to data from the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI). But DMI scientists explain that the article “fundamentally misrepresents both our research and the operational data products we provide”.

The scientists who have reviewed the article indicate that its claims are misleading or inaccurate. For instance, the article emphasizes that global average temperature has decreased since the end of the 2016 El Niño event, which was expected, but fails to note that this recent decrease by no means reverses the long-term increase in temperature. It also inaccurately claims that global temperature has not warmed over the past 19 years—in direct contradiction with observations. The author claims that last winter in the Arctic was “cold” (-20°C), but fails to recognize that this temperature is much warmer than the norm for the Arctic (by about 5°C), making it the second warmest winter on record.

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/ ... er-booker/

[_DoubtingThomas]

All ocean basins examined have experienced significant warming since 1998, with the greatest warming in the southern oceans, the tropical/subtropical Pacific Ocean, and the tropical/subtropical Atlantic Ocean....The new result (Fig. 6) suggests a total full-depth ocean warming of 33.5 ± 7.0 × 1022 J (equal to a net heating of 0.37 ± 0.08 W/m2 over the global surface and over the 56-year period) from 1960 to 2015, with 36.5, 20.4, 30.3, and 12.8% contributions from the 0- to 300-m, 300- to 700-m, 700- to 2000-m, and below 2000-m layers, respectively. Here, we prefer to use the total energy change in the budget analyses rather than the linear trend because the change is not linear owing to the general increase in radiative forcing with time. The new reconstruction confirms the previous finding that the upper ocean experiences the most statistically significant warming, while the 0- to 2000-m layer contributes to the vast majority of the ocean warming since 1960

Cheng, Lijing, et al. "Improved estimates of ocean heat content from 1960 to 2015." Science Advances 3.3 (2017): e1601545.

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/3/e1601545

Now what makes the hurricanes stronger?

[_Res Ipsa]

Yawn @ RI.

Since you know what I mean to say better than I do, I see no point in continuing.

Run little puppy. Run, run, run.

Still waiting.