- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Warming Predictions vs. Real World
Posted on 2/20/14 at 1:20 pm
Posted on 2/20/14 at 1:20 pm
So the red line is an average of 102 climate models. In any unbiased average with accurate assumptions you would expect approximately an equal number of climate models to over-forecast as under-forecast compared to actual conditions. One thing that this chart clearly illustrates is climate industry bias toward the warming side. I wonder if any one of the 102 climate models averaged in the chart above nailed their forecast?
LINK
10
Posted on 2/20/14 at 1:27 pm to GumboPot
People gonna be maaaaad! 
Posted on 2/20/14 at 1:29 pm to GumboPot
The hell you say...
This post was edited on 2/20/14 at 1:32 pm
Posted on 2/20/14 at 1:30 pm to GumboPot
DENIER! DENIER! DENIER!
Why do you hate science so much. Bringing in such data will just cloud the issue. We need to spend more on research, cripple entire industries, and bankrupt others while we figure this out.
But seriously, do you think your pretty little graph is going to change the minds of true believers?
Why do you hate science so much. Bringing in such data will just cloud the issue. We need to spend more on research, cripple entire industries, and bankrupt others while we figure this out.
But seriously, do you think your pretty little graph is going to change the minds of true believers?
Posted on 2/20/14 at 1:38 pm to GumboPot
:noshit:
Posted on 2/20/14 at 1:39 pm to Mid Iowa Tiger
quote:
ut seriously, do you think your pretty little graph is going to change the minds of true believers?
just becuase observed temps dont go up at the same rate as predictions, doesnt mean they arent going up.
the upward trend is pretty clear and would be expected to continue if not increase as emmissions do.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 1:41 pm to Y.A. Tittle
The problem with the current models is that they are not advanced enough to simulate the complex ocean/atmospheric dynamics and there is still a lot that we just don't know.
Coming from an engineering background I personally have serious reservations about our ability to model the earth and atmospheric system. With that being said, I think the most important question is how we address the problem of a finite fossil fuel reserve and pollution. Market solutions or government solutions?
Coming from an engineering background I personally have serious reservations about our ability to model the earth and atmospheric system. With that being said, I think the most important question is how we address the problem of a finite fossil fuel reserve and pollution. Market solutions or government solutions?
This post was edited on 2/20/14 at 6:27 pm
Posted on 2/20/14 at 1:47 pm to GumboPot
John Kerry says you think the Earth is flat.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 1:51 pm to Dalymaple
quote:
The problem with the current models is that they are not advanced enough to simulate the complex ocean/atmospheric dynamics and there is still a lot that we just don't know.
the discussion of the issue should always begin with this disclaimer, rather than constantly referring to a consensus that's supposed to be authoritative
Posted on 2/20/14 at 1:52 pm to LSURussian
So my banana farm in Nebraska is going to be a bust?
Posted on 2/20/14 at 1:53 pm to Mid Iowa Tiger
quote:
But seriously, do you think your pretty little graph is going to change the minds of true believers?
No. But I really not worried about "true believers" outside of the science community. I'm more worried about the possible concentration of "true believers" in the science community that are apparently at worst deliberately modeling to an outcome and at least making really poor assumptions.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 2:04 pm to Dalymaple
quote:
Coming from an engineering background I personally have serious reservations about our ability to model the earth and atmospheric system.
Me too. I was one of 6 system modelers for a pipeline company and our job was to maintain a system model for 14,000 miles of pipe. I did that job for two years. Our modeling predictions were close but never perfect. Now compare a system of 14,000 miles of pipe to the earth. The earth (and solar system) is a muuuuuuuuuuuuuuch bigger task. And the bigger the task (compared to the amount of resources) requires bigger assumptions. To quote Benny Hill, "When you AssUMe you make an arse out of U and Me".
Posted on 2/20/14 at 2:19 pm to Dalymaple
quote:
The problem with the current models is that they are not advanced enough to simulate the complex ocean/atmospheric dynamics and there is still a lot that we just don't know.
Therein lies the problem, which is two-fold:
1. Climate is subject to far too many variables for man to even begin to calculate.
2. Because of those other variables, to blame man for any perceived rise/drop in global temps or change in climate of any kind is absolute idiocy.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 2:23 pm to GumboPot
quote:
So the red line is an average of 102 climate models.
As I have suspected all along:
Posted on 2/20/14 at 2:37 pm to mtntiger
quote:
Therein lies the problem, which is two-fold:
1. Climate is subject to far too many variables for man to even begin to calculate.
2. Because of those other variables, to blame man for any perceived rise/drop in global temps or change in climate of any kind is absolute idiocy.
You forgot one:
3. The contribution by man is so infinitesimally small that suggesting we can do anything meaningful about it is plain fantasy.
Should we live as clean as possible? Yes. Should we be good stewards? Yes. (Hell even Genesis says so). Should we spend billions, wreck economies, and destroy industries? No.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 3:01 pm to BobBoucher
quote:
quote:Pretty clear?
just becuase observed temps dont go up at the same rate as predictions, doesnt mean they arent going up.
the upward trend is pretty clear
Compiled satellite data shows a difference of +0.07°C over the span of a third of a century.
That is crystal clear.
Trend?
How does knowledgeable person argue any climatic ""trend"" based on relatively stable temperatures measured over a 3 decade span.
quote:You do understand the graph's red line indicates what the temperature incline would approximate if your supposition regarding emissions was true?
the upward trend is pretty clear and would be expected to continue if not increase as emmissions do.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 3:17 pm to GumboPot
So let me get this straight, the red line indicates model predictions from 1979?
IOW, they are comparing what models were predicting in 1979 with observed data since?
I think our modeling may have improved some since 1979.
IOW, they are comparing what models were predicting in 1979 with observed data since?
I think our modeling may have improved some since 1979.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 3:34 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
According to the adherents I know, the heat is contained in the mid levels of the ocean and not the atmosphere. This is how they explain the models being off. Could be, may not be.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 3:39 pm to RogerTheShrubber
So can we like frack the ocean or something and get some of that heat? Bama can't handle any more snow.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 3:43 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
So let me get this straight, the red line indicates model predictions from 1979?
It looks that way.
quote:
I think our modeling may have improved some since 1979.
Sure.
But I think the point is a lot of alarmist prediction were made off these models and a lot of policy proposals were made off these models.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News