Global Warming

[Rorschach]

Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage. Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC’s emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/14/b ... nsitivity/

[Jovial_Monk]

Global warming causes more evaporation from the oceans—the atmosphere is therefor more moist than before and so precipitation is heavier. This of course fuels growth of grass and other undergrowth and then the higher temperatures, especially the higher night time temperatures, dries that undergrowth out—perfect fuel for bush/grass/forest fires.

The increasingly warm summers mean fires are more likely to start and quicker to spread and “grow.” A full blown bushfire these days is a firestorm, capable of killing from a Km away!

Nope, AGW has not stopped. The Daily Mail said so, basing it on a (fiddled) copy of data from the British Met Office but it ain’t so.

[Rorschach]

Check this out... scroll down...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/15/t ... fluxed-up/

[Jovial_Monk]

Wattsupwiththat—most error prone least reliable site around.

[Rorschach]

http://joannenova.com.au/

Dr Jensen, finally someone who knows what they are talking about... check it out.

[Jovial_Monk]

Bwahahahahahahahaha you really have to turn to totally unqualified sources, don’t you, roach?

Find that kindergarten board—might be treated as a guru rather than a joke there, for a while anyway.

[Rorschach]

A leaked copy of the world’s most authoritative climate study reveals scientific forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong.

The IPCC recognises the global warming ‘pause’ first reported by The Mail on Sunday last year is real – and concede that their computer models did not predict it. But they cannot explain why world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase since 1997

Last night Professor Judith Curry, head of climate science at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, said the leaked Summary for Policy-makers showed that ‘the science is clearly not settled, and is in a state of flux’. She said it therefore made no sense that the IPCC was claiming that its confidence in its forecasts and conclusions has increased. ‘The consensus-seeking process used by the IPCC creates and amplifies biases in the science. It should be abandoned in favour of a more traditional review that presents arguments for and against – which would better support scientific progress, and be more useful for policy makers.

Dr Benny Peiser, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, described the leaked report as a ‘staggering concoction of confusion, speculation and sheer ignorance’. As for the pause, he said ‘it would appear that the IPCC is running out of answers … to explain why there is a widening gap between predictions and reality’.

A new study in the journal Nature Climate Change that compared 117 climate predictions made in the 1990′s to the actual amount of warming finds that 99% of them overestimated the amount of warming. On average, the predictions forecasted two times more global warming than actually occurred.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/57923

One more time...
for those with short memories and absolutely no credibility

[Rorschach]

IPCC report proving Dr John Christy correct...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/21/d ... -congress/

[Super Nova]

A leaked copy of the world’s most authoritative climate study reveals scientific forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong.

The IPCC recognises the global warming ‘pause’ first reported by The Mail on Sunday last year is real – and concede that their computer models did not predict it. But they cannot explain why world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase since 1997

Last night Professor Judith Curry, head of climate science at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, said the leaked Summary for Policy-makers showed that ‘the science is clearly not settled, and is in a state of flux’. She said it therefore made no sense that the IPCC was claiming that its confidence in its forecasts and conclusions has increased. ‘The consensus-seeking process used by the IPCC creates and amplifies biases in the science. It should be abandoned in favour of a more traditional review that presents arguments for and against – which would better support scientific progress, and be more useful for policy makers.

Dr Benny Peiser, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, described the leaked report as a ‘staggering concoction of confusion, speculation and sheer ignorance’. As for the pause, he said ‘it would appear that the IPCC is running out of answers … to explain why there is a widening gap between predictions and reality’.

A new study in the journal Nature Climate Change that compared 117 climate predictions made in the 1990′s to the actual amount of warming finds that 99% of them overestimated the amount of warming. On average, the predictions forecasted two times more global warming than actually occurred.

I read this after defending my science position on the "War on Religion" Thread the day after I spend ages defending my position with IQ.

The IPCC recognises the global warming ‘pause’ first reported by The Mail on Sunday last year is real – and concede that their computer models did not predict it. But they cannot explain why world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase since 1997

Well that is easy. The model were just wrong.

It is a major concern as to why they don't know why that means that have not fixed the models.

That means there is a major degree of uncertainty around any new models they propose. That is a bloody disaster. It shows they were wrong and they don't know why they were wrong.

She said it therefore made no sense that the IPCC was claiming that its confidence in its forecasts and conclusions has increased.

I under that logic... now why would they say it has increased unless they have improved the models. Is she saying without understanding why the recent predictions were not true the whole thing needs to be questioned.... I am not sure of that.

The consensus-seeking process used by the IPCC creates and amplifies biases in the science. It should be abandoned in favour of a more traditional review that presents arguments for and against – which would better support scientific progress, and be more useful for policy makers.


If this is true then it is not best practice science. If the process leads to bias findings then it is not science... it's politics.

Therefore I still have a believe in science and proper scientific processes which clearly the IPCC is not. The process published looked viable and comprehensive however it was established to inform policy makers, I guess they get the bias outcome they wanted.

Poor science. Abuse of the name.

‘staggering concoction of confusion, speculation and sheer ignorance’. As for the pause, he said ‘it would appear that the IPCC is running out of answers … to explain why there is a widening gap between predictions and reality’.


Shocking.

A new study in the journal Nature Climate Change that compared 117 climate predictions made in the 1990′s to the actual amount of warming finds that 99% of them overestimated the amount of warming. On average, the predictions forecasted two times more global warming than actually occurred.

Well that does it.

There should be no far reaching policy implications until their report is independently reviewed by the scientific community outside those selected by the IPCC.

(ok, IQ and RS.... there may be something in your opinion however it is not science under question it is this warping of the scientific process calling it science that is the issue)

[Rorschach]

I read this after defending my science position on the "War on Religion" Thread the day after I spend ages defending my position with IQ.

The IPCC recognises the global warming ‘pause’ first reported by The Mail on Sunday last year is real – and concede that their computer models did not predict it. But they cannot explain why world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase since 1997

Well that is easy. The model were just wrong. Which is what we've been saying all along.

It is a major concern as to why they don't know why that means that have not fixed the models. No correct models

That means there is a major degree of uncertainty around any new models they propose. That is a bloody disaster. It shows they were wrong and they don't know why they were wrong. which is what we've been saying all along.

She said it therefore made no sense that the IPCC was claiming that its confidence in its forecasts and conclusions has increased.

I under that logic... now why would they say it has increased unless they have improved the models. Is she saying without understanding why the recent predictions were not true the whole thing needs to be questioned.... I am not sure of that. let's see the models are wrong.... therefore one should believe them and all conclusions drawn from them? No I agree with her... there is no concensus, something we've been saying all along, and the conclusions based on faulty models are wrong.

The consensus-seeking process used by the IPCC creates and amplifies biases in the science. It should be abandoned in favour of a more traditional review that presents arguments for and against – which would better support scientific progress, and be more useful for policy makers. Like I said as we have said all along.

If this is true then it is not best practice science. If the process leads to bias findings then it is not science... it's politics. hallelujah... hallelujah, hallelujah

Therefore I still have a believe in science and proper scientific processes which clearly the IPCC is not. The process published looked viable and comprehensive however it was established to inform policy makers, I guess they get the bias outcome they wanted. Really... that's what we've been saying all along.

Poor science. Abuse of the name. Yep.

‘staggering concoction of confusion, speculation and sheer ignorance’. As for the pause, he said ‘it would appear that the IPCC is running out of answers … to explain why there is a widening gap between predictions and reality’. The gap is there because the models are wrong... modelling aint reality. Models can be manipulated to provide any outcome you wish. Something we've been saying all along.

Shocking. political

A new study in the journal Nature Climate Change that compared 117 climate predictions made in the 1990′s to the actual amount of warming finds that 99% of them overestimated the amount of warming. On average, the predictions forecasted two times more global warming than actually occurred.

Well that does it.

There should be no far reaching policy implications until their report is independently reviewed by the scientific community outside those selected by the IPCC. be nice but wont happen. The UN has a wealth redistribution agenda.

(ok, IQ and RS.... there may be something in your opinion however it is not science under question it is this warping of the scientific process calling it science that is the issue)