New IPCC report is out

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

This is what I got from highlighting, right clicking, and searching Google:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... 031001/pdf

- Doc

[_canpakes]

Post a link to the site you copied the doctored abstract from.

Doctored? Words were changed?

Words were omitted that are clearly there, specifically, the final sentence from the paragraph you quoted.

Since you’re trying to play the “I’m not really complicit in this deception, just helplessly ignorant about what’s happening” game, I’ll add the missing part here for you:

Most of the warming, however, will emerge relatively quickly, implying that CO2 emission cuts will not only benefit subsequent generations but also the generation implementing those cuts.

So, where did you source your version from?

[_canpakes]

In a recent letter, Ricke and Caldeira (2014 Environ. Res. Lett. 9 124002) estimated that the timing between an emission and the maximum temperature response is a decade on average. In their analysis, they took into account uncertainties about the carbon cycle, the rate of ocean heat uptake and the climate sensitivity but did not consider one important uncertainty: the size of the emission. Using simulations with an Earth System Model we show that the time lag between a carbon dioxide (CO2) emission pulse and the maximum warming increases for larger pulses. Our results suggest that as CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, the full warming effect of an emission may not be felt for several decades, if not centuries.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... 0/3/031001

I wonder why the final sentence is missing?

[_Res Ipsa]

This is what I got from highlighting, right clicking, and searching Google:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... 031001/pdf

- Doc

Thanks, Doc. Had WD read the source material, he would have known that “relatively quickly,” is 93% in 10 years. By leaving out the last sentence, he completely misrepresented the conclusion of the paper.

[_canpakes]

The article completely supports my point. All the doom is based on computer models.

Yes. Computer models. That would seem better than depending on soothsayers or prophets.

Did you have a preferable alternate method of testing theories about future trends?

[_Water Dog]

Since you’re trying to play the “I’m not really complicit in this deception, just helplessly ignorant about what’s happening” game, I’ll add the missing part here for you:

Most of the warming, however, will emerge relatively quickly, implying that CO2 emission cuts will not only benefit subsequent generations but also the generation implementing those cuts.

It's almost like you didn't read my comment, but I know you did, cause you just quoted it. What am I supposed to think about this? It's not quoted deceptively. Either by me, or the original source.

Thanks, Doc. Had WD read the source material, he would have known that “relatively quickly,” is 93% in 10 years. By leaving out the last sentence, he completely misrepresented the conclusion of the paper.

How did I misrepresent the paper? Look, I'm not going to waste time engaging in a discussion that isn't happening in good faith. I fully expect people here to fact check the hell out of anything I say, looking for any trivial thing to ridicule and draw attention towards to distract from the main subject. I didn't make any attempt to deceive or misrepresent anything. Oh, and you're wrong. The paper supports my point.

[_canpakes]

Look, I'm not going to waste time engaging in a discussion that isn't happening in good faith.

Then start quoting in good faith.

[_Water Dog]

Yes. Computer models. That would seem better than depending on soothsayers or prophets.

Did you have a preferable alternate method of testing theories about future trends?

I love this comment. Lord. Models don't "test" theories, they describe them. The theory, by way of the model, is then tested by comparing the output of the model with real-world observations.

[_Morley]

I didn't make any attempt to deceive or misrepresent anything.

Waterdog: It's obvious that someone did attempt to mislead by leaving off the last sentence. All we're looking for is your source. Perhaps you can look in your browsing history, find it, and post it here. Thank you, in advance.

[_canpakes]

Yes. Computer models. That would seem better than depending on soothsayers or prophets.

Did you have a preferable alternate method of testing theories about future trends?

I love this comment. Lord. Models don't "test" theories, they describe them. The theory, by way of the model, is then tested by comparing the output of the model with real-world observations.

Have it your way. Tell us what method would be better, in your opinion.