Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (751865)	11/10/2013 9:34:28 AM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575426

sorry, global temperatures have been essentially flat for the past 15 years. Their models predicted significant increases in this time period. Do you really think that you can make shit up and not get called on it? -Jorj X Mckie OK, Jorje, now you are simply lying through your teeth. See the IPCC report on climate models below. It is to you I have to ask whether you really think that you can make shit up and not get called on it. ------------- ipcc.ch climatechange2013.org D.1 Evaluation of Climate Models Climate models have improved since the AR4. Models reproduce observed continental-scale surface temperature patterns and trends over many decades, including the more rapid warming since the mid-20th century and the cooling immediately following large volcanic eruptions (very high confidence). {9.4, 9.6, 9.8} ? The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend (very high confidence). There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years (e.g., 1998 to 2012). {9.4, Box 9.2} ? The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998–2012 as compared to the period 1951–2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing the reduced warming trend. There is medium confidence that internal decadal variability causes to a substantial degree the difference between observations and the simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of internal variability. There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the effects of aerosols). {9.4, Box 9.2, 10.3, Box 10.2, 11.3} ? On regional scales, the confidence in model capability to simulate surface temperature is less than for the larger scales. However, there is high confidence that regional-scale surface temperature is better simulated than at the time of the AR4. {9.4, 9.6} ? There has been substantial progress in the assessment of extreme weather and climate events since AR4. Simulated global-mean trends in the frequency of extreme warm and cold days and nights over the second half of the 20th century are generally consistent with observations. {9.5}

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (751865)

11/10/2013 9:38:57 AM

From: RetiredNow

Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1575426

One thing that we can do is move to higher levels of probability by defining what is certain. One thing that is certain is that the UN opinion that man is responsible for global warming, is wrong. They could add one word to make it true...but they didn't. And if you can't expect precision in their language, how can you expect precision in their science?

This is another statement of yours that shows your blatant disregard for truth and your own ignorance. You say the IPCC isn't precise in their language? This is how they define the probabilities based on their scientific studies. They are very precise, indeed. I was taking you seriously for awhile there, but it seems that now you are just a biased political partisan, nothing more.

------------
ipcc.ch

The standard terms used to define levels of confidence in this report are as given in the IPCC Uncertainty Guidance Note, namely:

Confidence Terminology Degree of confidence in being correct

Very high confidence	At least 9 out of 10 chance
High confidence	About 8 out of 10 chance
Medium confidence	About 5 out of 10 chance
Low confidence	About 2 out of 10 chance
Very low confidence	Less than 1 out of 10 chance

Note that ‘low confidence’ and ‘very low confidence’ are only used for areas of major concern and where a risk-based perspective is justified.

Chapter 2 of this report uses a related term ‘level of scientific understanding’ when describing uncertainties in different contributions to radiative forcing. This terminology is used for consistency with the Third Assessment Report, and the basis on which the authors have determined particular levels of scientific understanding uses a combination of approaches consistent with the uncertainty guidance note as explained in detail in Section 2.9.2 and Table 2.11.

The standard terms used in this report to define the likelihood of an outcome or result where this can be estimated probabilistically are:

Likelihood Terminology Likelihood of the occurrence/ outcome

Virtually certain	> 99% probability
Extremely likely	> 95% probability
Very likely	> 90% probability
Likely	> 66% probability
More likely than not	> 50% probability
About as likely as not	33 to 66% probability
Unlikely	< 33% probability
Very unlikely	< 10% probability
Extremely unlikely	< 5% probability
Exceptionally unlikely	< 1% probability

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (751865)	11/10/2013 9:52:28 AM
From: TideGlider	3 Recommendations Recommended By FJB Jorj X Mckie longnshort Respond to of 1575426

Warmist David Robert Grimes Foams At The Keyboard…Mounting Frustration Now On The Verge Of Anger By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotOctober 25, 2013 1:52 PM Irish Times David Robert Grimes Foams At The Keyboard…Mounting Frustration Now On The Verge Of Anger http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/24/irish-times-david-robert-grimes-foams-at-the-keyboard-mounting-frustration-now-on-the-verge-of-anger/ David Robert Grimes of the Irish Times latest piece pretty much tells us all we all need to know about the state of mind of climate alarmists nowadays: it’s one of mounting frustration that’s on the verge of exploding anger. Is this what one typically sees from the winning side of a debate? Certainly not. What we are actually seeing appears to be the tantrum one sees from the losing side that had gone in thinking victory was sure. Like an 8-year old losing a checker game to a brighter 4-year old. The humiliation is evident. He writes: “If greenhouse emissions continue their steady escalation, temperatures across most of the earth will rise to levels with no recorded precedent by the middle of this century, researchers say.” Notice here how Grimes writes “temperature will rise” and not “temperature is rising“. He is telling us to just wait another 40 years. He has to do this because all the models have been dead wrong. And what Grimes fails to understand is that if they are wrong today, then they can’t be used for the future. In fact neither Grimes nor any scientist has a single scrap of data that allows them to predict the future. It’s all scenario and speculation. Misinterprets the warming stop as bleak He writes: “The findings are bleak, but not unexpected.” False. The findings are unexpected. Not a single IPCC model got the temperatures for the last fifteen years correct. All overstated the temperature rise. So this is good news and is certainly not “bleak”. Only psychologically abnormal person would not feel a sense of some relief. The stop in temperature rise is unexpected and is thus can be nothing but good news – period. Obsessive catastrophe wishers Clearly Grimes comes across as an obsessive and irrational catastrophe-wisher. No data, news, or even therapy, are going to change the mindset of the obsessive alarmist. He seems to have an acute, unexplainable allergy to the bearers of good news, especially from “publications like the Daily Mail, the Wall Street Journal and numerous Murdoch press.” All good news that gets presented absolutely has to be defeated. Grimes denies real data, embraces model scenarios Grimes also accuses the skeptics of denialism, claiming they are practicing a “stubborn and persistent refusal to acknowledge what the evidence shows beyond all reasonable doubt.” All we can say here is that Grimes only needs to look at the performance of the models, storm statistics, Antarctic sea ice trends, the missing tropospheric hot spot, and especially the ABANDONED hockey stick. Who’s really in denial? Which scientists are puzzled by the missing heat and are scrambling to make up excuses for it? Alarmist journalists qualified, skeptic ones not? In his rambling, foaming rant, Grimes gripes about the skeptic politicians and press, even attacking columnists James Delingpole and David Rose for challenging the science and claiming they have “no qualification to do so.” Such a stupid argument. Delingpole and Rose are just as qualified to challenge the science as Grimes and Borenstein are qualified to endorse it. In the end data decide, and not the scientists with the longest resumes. This guy went to Oxford? Concedes complexity that skeptics claimed for years Grimes also hints that climate science is too complex to be decided by society: “Climate is a deeply complex system, not a simple thermostat.” Unfortunately this is not what the alarmist climate scientists have been telling us for the last 20 years. In fact they told us just the opposite: Climate and global temperature boil down to the concentration of trace gas CO2. Even Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber said so on camera. And all their simple climate models told us the same. It is us skeptics who have been telling the world that the climate is far more complex and that the simple CO2-global temperature correlation was preposterous. And now that there has not been any warming in 15 years, the alarmists are now finally waking up and coming around to this. Calls for anger, emotionalization have no place in science Grimes is emotional and frustrated, and thus cannot be taken seriously anymore. His scientific understanding has been fatally compromised by his emotional outbursts. Calls for anger and emotionalization have no place in science. Finally Grimes writes: “Worse than this, depleting ice-sheets increase tectonic and volcanic activity as the confining loads on these systems are stripped away, increasing seismic activity.” Now that I’m done laughing, to this I can only say that it amazes me that Oxford University would actually graduate people capable of such flaming nonsense. Grimes actually confuses far fetched raw hypotheses with settled science. From a science point a view, Grimes offers nothing. All we can do is give him high marks for entertainment. His behavior is exactly what us skeptics had looked forward to seeing 10 years ago, a time when were pretty sure we were going to win the debate. The entertainment begins. Photo David Grimes, Twitter