Australian Politics Forum - IPCC 95% sure about AGW

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 11064
Australia
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #450 - Oct 30^th, 2013 at 9:06am

muso wrote on Oct 30^th, 2013 at 8:38am:

The grey bands are error bands. It's pointless to remove them. They represent 95% confidence limits. In predicting future temperatures, we don't have all the inputs. We can't tell if there is another GFC around the corner, or if China will emit more aerosols than expected.

If you want to deliberately misrepresent IPCC predictions, then by all means remove the error bands. Why bother? Just make a new graph that is nothing like IPCC predictions. Monckton seems to get off with that. The "Galileo Movement" obvously think it's ok to do that.

I don't know if the graphs have been tampered with other than that.

So are you suggesting we place our faith in computer circulation models that couldn't predict the last 15 years...????...of temperature....????

How can we trust them to forecast for 100 years into the future......????????

Crystal ball stuff dude.................!!!!

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW Reply #451 - Oct 30^th, 2013 at 9:34am Will the real Figure 1.4 stand up? Just a tad different from the edited version.
Back to top	Screenshot_from_2013-10-30_09:31:18.png (123 KB \| 43 ) 1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW Reply #452 - Oct 30^th, 2013 at 9:40am Ajax wrote on Oct 30^th, 2013 at 9:06am: So are you suggesting we place our faith in computer circulation models that couldn't predict the last 15 years...????...of temperature....???? I don't know what a computer circulation model is. Could you explain the main points?
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 11064
Australia
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #453 - Oct 30^th, 2013 at 9:50am

muso wrote on Oct 30^th, 2013 at 9:40am:

Ajax wrote on Oct 30^th, 2013 at 9:06am:

So are you suggesting we place our faith in computer circulation models that couldn't predict the last 15 years...????...of temperature....????

I don't know what a computer circulation model is. Could you explain the main points?

Are you playing dumb with me muso......????

Computer climate models

Computer circulation models

Computer models

All the above represent the same thing.....!!!!

I forgot to add sh!t in sh!t out i'm afraid.....as the last 15 years have shown.....!!!

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW Reply #454 - Oct 30^th, 2013 at 9:58am If you just said computer models, it would make sense.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

Ajax Gold Member Offline CO2 has never controlled temperature on Earth Posts: 11064 Australia Gender:	Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW Reply #455 - Oct 30^th, 2013 at 10:07am muso wrote on Oct 30^th, 2013 at 9:58am: If you just said computer models, it would make sense. Ok I'll say computer models from now on.
Back to top	1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax 2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos IP Logged

Chimp_Logic Gold Member Offline πολιτικός Posts: 4826 Mawson Base Gender:	Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW Reply #456 - Oct 30^th, 2013 at 11:16am Ajax likes the year 1998 - likes starting his plots from that year forward ...interesting kindergarten level spin method
Back to top	Mini Ice Age (2014-2029) Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness IP Logged

Vuk11

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1797
QLD
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #457 - Oct 30^th, 2013 at 12:28pm

muso wrote on Oct 30^th, 2013 at 8:38am:

The grey bands are error bands. It's pointless to remove them. They represent 95% confidence limits. In predicting future temperatures, we don't have all the inputs. We can't tell if there is another GFC around the corner, or if China will emit more aerosols than expected.

If you want to deliberately misrepresent IPCC predictions, then by all means remove the error bands. Why bother? Just make a new graph that is nothing like IPCC predictions. Monckton seems to get off with that. The "Galileo Movement" obvously think it's ok to do that.

I don't know if the graphs have been tampered with other than that.

[/quote]

Error bands of what though? All of the error bands for each model is already colour coded?
I would think that only the error bands of the models are relevant for assessing the effectiveness of said models? Oh I know I'll just paint a whole graph grey with a sliver of white on either end and call it an error band, not one of a model just a you know general band so I can never be proven wrong.

I'm not misrepresenting anything, I still fail to see what the grey represents and not just that but how is it relevant to the effectiveness of the models which are clearly shown with their own color coded error bands.

Back to top

IP Logged

Vuk11

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1797
QLD
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #458 - Oct 30^th, 2013 at 12:31pm

muso wrote on Oct 30^th, 2013 at 9:34am:

Will the real Figure 1.4 stand up? Just a tad different from the edited version.

All you had to do was ask Wink

I still fail to see how labeling something "95% confidence limit" has anything to do with the models themselves? You think it's acceptable to paint half a graph in colour and say THERE! we predicted everything! A child can do that...

Back to top

IPCC_Fifth_Temperature_Anomoly_Graph.png (26 KB | 41 )

IP Logged

Vuk11

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1797
QLD
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #459 - Oct 30^th, 2013 at 12:37pm

Oh ahah!
They replaced my above graphic with your one anyway!
So instead of letting it stand up to scrutiny, accepting it and saying this is the truth, they zoom out splatter it with colour and call it the new figure 1.4 to hide the failure of the last.

You don't think that is the slightest bit dodgy/misleading that it doesn't smell a tiny bit like bias for an agenda?

Back to top

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded Gold Member Offline MediocrityNET: because people died for this! Posts: 26966	Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW Reply #460 - Oct 30^th, 2013 at 12:51pm Ajax wrote on Oct 30^th, 2013 at 10:07am: muso wrote on Oct 30^th, 2013 at 9:58am: If you just said computer models, it would make sense. Ok I'll say computer models from now on. Nazis own words !
Back to top	Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #461 - Oct 30^th, 2013 at 12:54pm

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 30^th, 2013 at 12:31pm:

muso wrote on Oct 30^th, 2013 at 9:34am:

Will the real Figure 1.4 stand up? Just a tad different from the edited version.

All you had to do was ask Wink

I still fail to see how labeling something "95% confidence limit" has anything to do with the models themselves? You think it's acceptable to paint half a graph in colour and say THERE! we predicted everything! A child can do that...

All good science includes error value jebus how many billions of times do your masters need me to repeat that? Roll Eyes

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #462 - Oct 30^th, 2013 at 12:57pm

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 30^th, 2013 at 12:28pm:

muso wrote on Oct 30^th, 2013 at 8:38am:

The grey bands are error bands. It's pointless to remove them. They represent 95% confidence limits. In predicting future temperatures, we don't have all the inputs. We can't tell if there is another GFC around the corner, or if China will emit more aerosols than expected.

If you want to deliberately misrepresent IPCC predictions, then by all means remove the error bands. Why bother? Just make a new graph that is nothing like IPCC predictions. Monckton seems to get off with that. The "Galileo Movement" obvously think it's ok to do that.

I don't know if the graphs have been tampered with other than that.

Error bands of what though? All of the error bands for each model is already colour coded?
I would think that only the error bands of the models are relevant for assessing the effectiveness of said models? Oh I know I'll just paint a whole graph grey with a sliver of white on either end and call it an error band, not one of a model just a you know general band so I can never be proven wrong.

I'm not misrepresenting anything, I still fail to see what the grey represents and not just that but how is it relevant to the effectiveness of the models which are clearly shown with their own color coded error bands. [/quote]
The uncertainty principle .... Roll Eyes

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

Vuk11

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1797
QLD
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #463 - Oct 30^th, 2013 at 1:15pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 30^th, 2013 at 12:57pm:

The uncertainty principle .... Roll Eyes

You misunderstand on both posts. I know everything is uncertain and I know that in science there are error bands. What I'm confused about is the distinction between the coloured bands representing the models, which is where I'm saying "the models have failed" and people saying the models haven't failed because of the grey error bands that represent no models.

Muso said they represent "95% certainty* of what? Of humans causing global warming? How does 95% certainty over AGW translate to error bands on a graph of predictions? It doesn't. The predictions are colour coded per climate model, if it falls outside of those colours then the models have failed. Then you had grey bands call it 95% certainty and call it a day?

The grey bands represent nothing, it is not clear in the graph as the legend doesn't include them, the description the precedes figure 1.4 fails to mention their purpose.

Back to top

IP Logged

Vuk11

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1797
QLD
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #464 - Oct 30^th, 2013 at 1:22pm

Wait wait let me see if I get this right, I'm looking at someone trying to explain it.

It's an "extention" of the error bands using uncertainty?

A good point from WUWT:
"It grows so that it is around twice the spread between all of the models combined. It is so broad that it would take at least another decade of flat temperatures to falsify it. "

Someone else is saying in AR4 it was called Post-SRES range (80%) , so in this case it's a Post-SRES range (95%)?

A google search for Post-SRES:
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change "Special Report on Emissions Scenarios" (SRES) explored pathways of future greenhouse gas emissions, derived from self-consistent sets of assumptions about energy use, population growth, economic development, and other factors. "

Back to top

IP Logged