tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post4410097414056326100..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: EliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-63489180070153811962008-05-20T16:06:00.000-04:002008-05-20T16:06:00.000-04:00Here's what Gavin Schmidt says Claims that a negat...Here's what <A HREF="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/langswitch_lang/zh#more-564" REL="nofollow">Gavin Schmidt says</A> <BR/><I><BR/>Claims that a negative observed trend over the last 8 years would be inconsistent with the models cannot be supported. Similar claims that the IPCC projection of about 0.2ºC/dec over the next few decades would be falsified with such an observation are equally bogus." <BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Schmidt points out the real problem with the claims of "IPCC falsified" based on the last 7 years:<BR/><BR/>The spread on the <A HREF="http://www.realclimate.org/images/trends_dist.jpg" REL="nofollow">distribution of projected trends</A> for the years 2000-2007 is considerable: (-0.23ºC/dec to 0.61ºC/dec with a mean of about 0.19C/decade) which means that even an observed trend of -0.1C/decade falls within the +- 2 std. dev. envelope for the projection ensemble. <BR/><BR/>Those who have claimed "IPCC falsified" have essentially ignored the error bars on the projections and instead focused on whether the mean value of "about 0.2C per decade" lies within the expected range based on data over the past 7 years.<BR/><BR/>in other words, they have effectively treated the IPCC projections as if they HAD no associated spread.<BR/><BR/>This is just nonsense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-39023054625979235252008-05-20T13:05:00.000-04:002008-05-20T13:05:00.000-04:00it seems to me that the situation with climate doe...it seems to me that the situation with climate does not easily lend itself to critical experiments or observations. In that regard, it is like Darwin's natural selection."<BR/><BR/>Actually, the issue here is (allegedly) not even whether the GHG theory for warming is true or not.<BR/><BR/>It is whether the IPCC projections (which were intended for multiple decades if not a century) are consistent with what has happened over the past 7 years.<BR/><BR/>The IPCC projected trends were not intended to cover a period as short as 7 years and to behave as if they were is either delusional (if done in ignorance) or dishonest (if done knowingly).<BR/><BR/>No amount of whining that "The IPCC should have made projections for the next 7 years" or "IPCC projections are useless because they can not be falsified" is going to change that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-17624807854403147152008-05-14T21:39:00.000-04:002008-05-14T21:39:00.000-04:00I personally find that my mind is easily confused ...I personally find that my mind is easily confused when I attempt to debate with Jedi Rabbets, but it seems to me that the situation with climate does not easily lend itself to critical experiments or observations. In that regard, it is like Darwin's natural selection. <BR/><BR/>Darwin stands on his internal logic and the accumulated weight of a million confirmatory observations and discoveries. Stratospheric warming is a good confirmation but the Kirchoff's law bit is a little Jedi mind control snark.<BR/><BR/>Rogger, and the other doggers, will either wait for the evidence to accumulate and roast off their scepticism, or else the theory will triumph (or not) by the usual scientific process of all the old scientists dying off.CapitalistImperialistPighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17523405806602731435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-11172053088180042192008-05-14T15:05:00.000-04:002008-05-14T15:05:00.000-04:00More on unfalsifiable conspiracy theories, by your...More on unfalsifiable conspiracy theories, by yours truly: <A HREF="http://frankbi.wordpress.com/2008/05/14/towards-a-genealogy-of-climate-conspiracy-theories/" REL="nofollow">Towards a genealogy of climate conspiracy theories</A>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-56972608072625266992008-05-14T05:59:00.000-04:002008-05-14T05:59:00.000-04:00Pielke's response to my observation that his consp...Pielke's response to my <A HREF="http://frankbi.wordpress.com/2008/05/11/falsifiability-falsification-and-conspiracy-theories/" REL="nofollow">observation</A> that his conspiracy theory is unfalsifiable:<BR/><BR/>"Thanks for the link, where you call me a crank and a conspiracy theorist. You've got me there ;-)"<BR/><BR/>Hey, who cares about falsifiability! If I'm calling Pielke a crank, then he must be right!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-12020280671546245052008-05-14T05:51:00.000-04:002008-05-14T05:51:00.000-04:00The anonymice continue their "la la la la la la I'...The anonymice continue their "la la la la la la I'm not listening" charade...<BR/><BR/>Ignore Anonymous Idiots (IAI).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-88892684566862468512008-05-14T03:03:00.000-04:002008-05-14T03:03:00.000-04:00The argument seems to be that because global tempe...The argument seems to be that because global temperatures have not stayed flat from 1980 to 2008, we either do not have to answer the question or cannot answer it.<BR/><BR/>This is very, very strange reasoning. People ask what if anything could happen in the next 10 years which would refute an hypothesis. In reply we are told about some things have happened in the previous 30. It is irrelevant. <BR/><BR/>And it confirms the increasing impression that the problem is some political correctness impediment to rational discussion of this topic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-67944281212368237712008-05-14T01:00:00.000-04:002008-05-14T01:00:00.000-04:00"What will falsify models?""Well, look at the glob..."What will falsify models?"<BR/><BR/>"Well, look at the global temperature trend after 1980 which already --"<BR/><BR/>"LALALALALALALA I'M NOT LISTENING!!!! LALALALALALALALA..."<BR/><BR/>Note to self: Ignore Anonymous Idiots (IAI).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-22958515844028078512008-05-13T13:55:00.000-04:002008-05-13T13:55:00.000-04:00Yes, that could very well be true - it could very ...Yes, that could very well be true - it could very well be warming and not wiggling as it used to. It could be that something terrible happened with Heartland, whatever that is. However none of those were the question, the question was whether there is anything that could happen in the next ten years which could falsify. If you ask this it doesn't necessarily mean you are committed to any particular point of view. There is nothing aggressive or obviously unpleasant or denialist about the question.<BR/><BR/>It would be perfectly reasonable to say no, whatever it was would be weather. Fine, just say it. Is it somehow taboo to say that? Or one could say, over 20 years, results xxxx would falsify.<BR/><BR/>I don't know if its framing or Alzheimers or whatever else, all that is just words, one just would like an straight answer to a simple question. <BR/><BR/>If people cannot or will not give one, that too is interesting, which is how its looking now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-79820356120756909442008-05-13T10:44:00.000-04:002008-05-13T10:44:00.000-04:00What all of you (and of course anonymous in partic...What all of you (and of course anonymous in particular) are missing, is that this an attempt at <EM>framing</EM>. It's the Alzheimer approach to climate projection falsification.<BR/><BR/>Forget about the past. Insist that the IPCC projections must prove their mettle in the future. And in the meantime, engage in inactivity.<BR/><BR/>Look at <A HREF="http://mediamatters.org/items/200803040011" REL="nofollow">Figure 9.5</A> of the IPCC AR4 Science Basis. From 1980 onward global temperatures have had ample opportunity to falsify the model results used by the IPCC report, and the physics they are based on. All they had to do was continue wiggle horizontally like they used to. They didn't.<BR/><BR/>:wqAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-42572779817187511592008-05-13T07:13:00.000-04:002008-05-13T07:13:00.000-04:00Shorter anonymous: la la la la la I'm not listenin...Shorter anonymous: la la la la la I'm not listening...<BR/><BR/>Note to self: Ignore Anonymous Idiots (IAI).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-81460662295467941752008-05-13T04:06:00.000-04:002008-05-13T04:06:00.000-04:00We now clearly see, just as with the former series...We now clearly see, just as with the former series on the Hockey Stick, that it is politically incorrect to ask what events could falsify the IPCC projections. It is incorrect because the answer 'none' is felt to be unacceptable, but also, to give any particular answer would open up a debate which is felt not acceptable either.<BR/><BR/>So the tactic is to descend into abuse and rage while refusing to answer. However, it remains a real and interesting question, and one not posed only by people who deny AGW.<BR/><BR/>Gavin's recent RC post shows that an answer can be given, and the debate can be entertained and must leave many of you feeling a little foolish. The Party Line has changed. Please make a note of this. The particular answer given there may be right or wrong, but there is nothing wrong with either the question or answering it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-27497775052646080982008-05-13T00:03:00.000-04:002008-05-13T00:03:00.000-04:00EliRabett2003 yahoo. This post will self destruct...EliRabett2003 yahoo. This post will self destruct sooner or later.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-55207012742610921572008-05-12T23:56:00.000-04:002008-05-12T23:56:00.000-04:00Roger's excuse for the RealClimate prediction is t...Roger's excuse for the RealClimate prediction is that it's biased. Not that the prediction is unfalsifiable -- because it <I>is</I> falsifiable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-86533622451574100252008-05-12T19:46:00.000-04:002008-05-12T19:46:00.000-04:00JA thinks he's answered Roger's question; Roger ap...JA thinks he's answered Roger's question; Roger apparently doesn't. Can't someone (a little more knowledgeable than me) answer Roger's question <I>exactly</I> as he's posed it?Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16914264739638166750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-67619815048772227032008-05-12T16:37:00.000-04:002008-05-12T16:37:00.000-04:00I think Eli is wasting keystrokes, BUT. That is th...I think Eli is wasting keystrokes, BUT. <BR/><BR/>That is the issue, the one the denialists are leaving out. IF, say, a comet somehow magically sent ice clouds around the earth and reduced the temperature, if it didn't go down as much as ice clouds without C02 increase and greenhouse effect would go down, then greenhouse gases would still be as relevant as they actually were.<BR/><BR/>It's not just temperature. Everyone acknowledges ENSO issues. Everyone acknowledges (usually small, over short periods) changes in solar output (which are measurable). Indeed, it's our side that understands Milankovic cycles.<BR/><BR/>Models are how you express theories. To say you should do without them is completely crazy.<BR/><BR/>The denialists are every bit as model-based as we are. They just lie about even that, and their models don't work.Marion Delgadohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493068399042656060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-65051589723343329622008-05-12T12:29:00.000-04:002008-05-12T12:29:00.000-04:00s/Dano/Flavius Collium/s/Dano/Flavius Collium/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-45113179684832951482008-05-12T12:20:00.000-04:002008-05-12T12:20:00.000-04:00Dano, you can contact me through the Wikipedia e-m...Dano, you can contact me through the <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Bi" REL="nofollow">Wikipedia e-mail form</A>, but I'll probably be too busy with other silly stuff to implement any sort of nefarious schemes. (:Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-23415935280089786162008-05-12T11:00:00.000-04:002008-05-12T11:00:00.000-04:00Eli, Frank, how do I contact you via e-mail for so...Eli, Frank, how do I contact you via e-mail for some scheming?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-12695330045862922562008-05-12T10:34:00.000-04:002008-05-12T10:34:00.000-04:00Shorter Roger:"I'm the honest broker, you hear onl...Shorter Roger:<BR/>"I'm the honest broker, you hear only my voice, as I hear only my voice, listen only to me, as I do ...."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-34814448804382742102008-05-12T10:30:00.000-04:002008-05-12T10:30:00.000-04:00Stupid questions are those that assume things that...Stupid questions are those that assume things that are not true. The answer starts with, hey, Ms. Rabett don't beat Eli (yells at him occasionally tho, but in a loving way).<BR/><BR/><BR/>Stupid people are those who keep asking questions that have been answered and of course like three year olds play the why daddy game. A round of giggles for the old guy.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-1433033611840142532008-05-12T09:50:00.000-04:002008-05-12T09:50:00.000-04:00It was quite clear to me some years ago that Roger...It was quite clear to me some years ago that Roger's dodgering was easily seen. <BR/><BR/>Dano quit trying to get Roger nailed down, and instead started asking why, if he was such a scientific stickler, did he allow such cr*p to be posted to his comments with no harrumphing, but harrumphing abounded when one pointed out the dodgering? <BR/><BR/>Pointing out the hokum was what got Dano effectively banned.<BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/><BR/>DDanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03709762632849004871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-567748792172314422008-05-12T08:55:00.000-04:002008-05-12T08:55:00.000-04:00I think Roger (jr) is not on the ball.He took some...I think Roger (jr) is not on the ball.<BR/><BR/>He took some IPCC big picture long time trend pics, then zoomed to a tiny portion and superimposed measurements and did some math.<BR/><BR/>Eh. I've also had correspondence with a "it's cooling or warming, we can't say" journalist who I'm sure really thinks he's fair and honest. He said that since this particular year is at the 30 year mean, it's very far from IPCC or Hansen, and contradicts them.<BR/><BR/>Uh, IPCC or Hansen didn't predict "no variability". They work on trends. Why does everyone get it wrong all the time?<BR/><BR/>It's a fundamental misunderstanding. Either the people haven't been taught, don't want to learn, are dishonest or are stupid.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-37236709708521581452008-05-12T06:25:00.000-04:002008-05-12T06:25:00.000-04:00Perhaps Roger should look at the latest RC-post an...Perhaps Roger should look at the latest RC-post and pick one of the realisations from the first graph as an answer to the question he posted at May 9, 9.06 PM:<BR/><BR/>,,If you want to argue that 20 years of no temp increase is consistent with the projections of the models used by the IPCC, then you simply need to show one run with such an outcome.''<BR/><BR/>By connecting the coldest individual years, assuming each realisation presents an even-likely year-to-year probability of outcome, you can get a zero-trend from 2000 to 2020 from the plume of realisations. Hmm...<BR/><BR/>Also, the fact that Roger avoids a discussion on the likelihood that the Keenlyside forecast -is- or even -might be- within the distribution of likely outcomes, says a lot for me. He chooses to say it doesn’t (,,(..), but it would broaden the distribution of outcomes’’). Oh, the ignorance.<BR/><BR/>Cheers, BenBenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09269205247549977562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-26273969077895164642008-05-12T04:11:00.000-04:002008-05-12T04:11:00.000-04:00By the way, there is such a thing as a stupid ques...By the way, there <I>is</I> such a thing as a stupid question. When a question has been <I>directly</I> answered countless times and you still insist on asking it, then you're asking a stupid question. When you ask the question with no intention of paying heed to the answers, then you're asking a stupid question. When you insist on defending your stupid question by saying that it's not stupid because people think it's stupid, that just makes your question <I>doubly stupid.</I><BR/><BR/>-- bi, <A HREF="http://frankbi.wordpress.com/" REL="nofollow"><I>International Journal of Inactivism</I></A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com