Australian Politics Forum - UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #15 - Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 11:58am

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 11:54am:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 11:51am:

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 11:46am:

What rule, progs?

For goodness sake MOTR... we discusses this at some length last year. the models are considered to have gone off track if temperatures have stopped rising for 17 years. Thats not my determination but actually those of the ACC high priests that you quote. Even the IPCC admits to the 17year pause but now says (rather ridiculously) that we actually need 47-57 YEARS of pausing to prove anything.

Perhaps you could provide a link to where this particular rule has been articulated by the "ACC high priests."

what would be the point? All you would do is say it isnt true. you would then point to the MET but ignore the fact that the IPCC has has said there has been a pause.

but seriously, at what point does it start to become a ridiculous thing for you? you tell me when it would be a pause in GW? Just for you. what would prove to YOU that GW had stopped? IM interested because I'm betting that you dont even have a measurment that you would abide by.

so again, what length of time would convince you the GW has stopped.

and a second question. How many years of DROPPING temperatures would convince you that tht entire ACC hypothesis was wrong?

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

MOTR Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6646	Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation. Reply #16 - Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 12:01pm The point would be to prove this particular rule isn't a figment of your poor comprehension
Back to top	Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings "What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions." IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #17 - Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 12:02pm

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 11:57am:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 11:53am:

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 11:49am:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 11:38am:

Come on MOTR... are you now going to admit that there has been a 17 year pause in GW? After all, the head of the IPCC said exactly that. You spent dozens of posts refuting that allegation only to have the very TOP of the ACC tree admit it is true.

So... do you agree with him or not??

BTW thats a yes or no answer

I've never denied that you can construct a 16 or 17 year statistical pause if you pick the right starting point. It just doesn't mean anything, as the MET has pointed out.

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/warmestdecade.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/MetOffice.gif

good greif motr... what exactly does it take to get thru to you? its not about getting a convenient starting point. Just take today and look back 17 years!!

the IPCC have stated that there is as 17 year pause. Why cant you? you constantly demand that we accept their word as the final say so on climate but here you are rejecting their own gospel? How is that working out?

Why don't you go back twenty years or 15 years.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/global/decadal-global-temps-1881s-2001s.g...

why not go back 1000 years? or 2000 years?

We are talking about a pause in CURRENT temperatures and as such it would be rather helpful to measure current times.

and your 20 year range doesn't change the determination anyhow. the last 17 years of that range is still flat - whether you like it or not.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #18 - Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 12:06pm

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 12:01pm:

The point would be to prove this particular rule isn't a figment of your poor comprehension

okay let's just accept that we need 10 years of rises to create a religious cult of climate change but that we need 100 years of no rises or drops to reject it.

THIS is why people dont trust ACC hysterics like yourself. Every bit of evidence - EVERY BIT - is construed to support your ridiculous and patently absurd doomsday scenario.

temperatures up? GW
Temperatures down? GW
less rain? GW
more rain? GW
sea levels up? GW
sea levels down? GW
artic ice decreases? GW
arctic ice increases? GW

and now we can add... temperatures not rising - GW

after a while it all gets a bit absurd.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

skippy.

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 20882
Gender: male

Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #19 - Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 12:06pm

Quote:

Climate change is a growing problem. Each year in the past decade has been hotter than the 1981-2010 average, and extreme heat waves are becoming more frequent.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/slowing-global-warming-no-cause-for-complacency-20130112-2cm06.html#ixzz2LgTlOYFz

For the buggers. Roll Eyes

Back to top

freedivers other forum- POLITICAL ANIMAL
Click onWWW below

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #20 - Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 12:08pm

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 11:58am:

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 11:54am:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 11:51am:

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 11:46am:

What rule, progs?

For goodness sake MOTR... we discusses this at some length last year. the models are considered to have gone off track if temperatures have stopped rising for 17 years. Thats not my determination but actually those of the ACC high priests that you quote. Even the IPCC admits to the 17year pause but now says (rather ridiculously) that we actually need 47-57 YEARS of pausing to prove anything.

Perhaps you could provide a link to where this particular rule has been articulated by the "ACC high priests."

what would be the point? All you would do is say it isnt true. you would then point to the MET but ignore the fact that the IPCC has has said there has been a pause.

but seriously, at what point does it start to become a ridiculous thing for you? you tell me when it would be a pause in GW? Just for you. what would prove to YOU that GW had stopped? IM interested because I'm betting that you dont even have a measurment that you would abide by.

so again, what length of time would convince you the GW has stopped.

and a second question. How many years of DROPPING temperatures would convince you that tht entire ACC hypothesis was wrong?

Enough so that when you take out well known short term natural drivers we can clearly see a pause.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #21 - Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 12:08pm

skippy. wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 12:06pm:

Quote:

Climate change is a growing problem. Each year in the past decade has been hotter than the 1981-2010 average, and extreme heat waves are becoming more frequent.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/slowing-global-warming-no-cause...

For the buggers. Roll Eyes

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #22 - Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 12:09pm

Quote:

a) the IPCC detection arguments rely on a clear separation between the signals from forced climate change and natural internal variability. Numerous climate model analyses find that it is very unlikely that a plateau or period of cooling extends beyond 15-17 years in the presence of anthropogenic global warming.

b) failure of the climate models to predict a >17 year plateau raises questions about the suitability of the climate models for detection and attribution analyses, particularly in terms of accounting adequately for multidecadal modes of climate variability

c) comparison of the observed temperature trend with the IPCC projection of 0.2C increase in the early 21st century raises issues about the models’ reliability in terms of sensitivity to external forcing and ability to deal with natural internal variability

http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/17/pause-waving-the-italian-flag/

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #23 - Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 12:15pm

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 12:08pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 11:58am:

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 11:54am:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 11:51am:

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 11:46am:

What rule, progs?

For goodness sake MOTR... we discusses this at some length last year. the models are considered to have gone off track if temperatures have stopped rising for 17 years. Thats not my determination but actually those of the ACC high priests that you quote. Even the IPCC admits to the 17year pause but now says (rather ridiculously) that we actually need 47-57 YEARS of pausing to prove anything.

Perhaps you could provide a link to where this particular rule has been articulated by the "ACC high priests."

what would be the point? All you would do is say it isnt true. you would then point to the MET but ignore the fact that the IPCC has has said there has been a pause.

but seriously, at what point does it start to become a ridiculous thing for you? you tell me when it would be a pause in GW? Just for you. what would prove to YOU that GW had stopped? IM interested because I'm betting that you dont even have a measurment that you would abide by.

so again, what length of time would convince you the GW has stopped.

and a second question. How many years of DROPPING temperatures would convince you that tht entire ACC hypothesis was wrong?

Enough so that when you take out well known short term natural drivers we can clearly see a pause.

so an answer that is so poorly and hopelessly undefined that you can basically say 'never' no matter what happens. Yours is the standard answer to model failure which is pretty much 'if you take out all the stuff we couldn't predict, didnt know about or just got wrong, our model is perfect'

just for some background, I run training courses in computer modelling of a particular environmental area. If I told people the kind of crap you just sprouted, they'd laugh. If models don't work then the models are worthless. excuses after-the-fact dont cut it if your model misses by a mile. You either get it right or your entire model is worthless. not ONE SINGLE MODEL has predicted a pause of any significance.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #24 - Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 12:16pm

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 12:08pm:

skippy. wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 12:06pm:

Quote:

Climate change is a growing problem. Each year in the past decade has been hotter than the 1981-2010 average, and extreme heat waves are becoming more frequent.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/slowing-global-warming-no-cause...

For the buggers. Roll Eyes

so what you are saying now is that the IPCC was wrong in saying that there has bene a pause? I thought you claimed that they were virtually impeccable in their science?

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #25 - Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 12:26pm

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 12:09pm:

Quote:

a) the IPCC detection arguments rely on a clear separation between the signals from forced climate change and natural internal variability. Numerous climate model analyses find that it is very unlikely that a plateau or period of cooling extends beyond 15-17 years in the presence of anthropogenic global warming.

b) failure of the climate models to predict a >17 year plateau raises questions about the suitability of the climate models for detection and attribution analyses, particularly in terms of accounting adequately for multidecadal modes of climate variability

c) comparison of the observed temperature trend with the IPCC projection of 0.2C increase in the early 21st century raises issues about the models’ reliability in terms of sensitivity to external forcing and ability to deal with natural internal variability

http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/17/pause-waving-the-italian-flag/

So is Judith Curry now an ACC high priest?

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #26 - Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 12:28pm

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 12:16pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 12:08pm:

skippy. wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 12:06pm:

Quote:

Climate change is a growing problem. Each year in the past decade has been hotter than the 1981-2010 average, and extreme heat waves are becoming more frequent.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/slowing-global-warming-no-cause...

For the buggers. Roll Eyes

so what you are saying now is that the IPCC was wrong in saying that there has bene a pause? I thought you claimed that they were virtually impeccable in their science?

You have a serious comprehension problem, longy. Did you actually watch the video?

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #27 - Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 12:42pm

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 12:08pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 11:58am:

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 11:54am:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 11:51am:

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 11:46am:

What rule, progs?

For goodness sake MOTR... we discusses this at some length last year. the models are considered to have gone off track if temperatures have stopped rising for 17 years. Thats not my determination but actually those of the ACC high priests that you quote. Even the IPCC admits to the 17year pause but now says (rather ridiculously) that we actually need 47-57 YEARS of pausing to prove anything.

Perhaps you could provide a link to where this particular rule has been articulated by the "ACC high priests."

what would be the point? All you would do is say it isnt true. you would then point to the MET but ignore the fact that the IPCC has has said there has been a pause.

but seriously, at what point does it start to become a ridiculous thing for you? you tell me when it would be a pause in GW? Just for you. what would prove to YOU that GW had stopped? IM interested because I'm betting that you dont even have a measurment that you would abide by.

so again, what length of time would convince you the GW has stopped.

and a second question. How many years of DROPPING temperatures would convince you that tht entire ACC hypothesis was wrong?

Enough so that when you take out well known short term natural drivers we can clearly see a pause.

like the warming is a natural variation? I see.

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6646	Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation. Reply #28 - Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 12:50pm Yes, there are natural drivers, progs. That's why we haven't seen a monotonic increase in temperatures and it's why climate models predict pauses and declines.
Back to top	Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings "What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions." IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #29 - Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 12:52pm

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 12:50pm:

Yes, there are natural drivers, progs. That's why we haven't seen a monotonic increase in temperatures and it's why climate models predict pauses and declines.

They do not predict the pause we have had. Hence back to the drawing board because we dont know what we thought we knew.

Back to top

IP Logged