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: TimF who wrote (935188)	5/16/2016 12:22:41 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575535

Have Past IPCC Temperature Projections/Predictions Been Accurate? The question routinely shows up in climate arguments, with claims in both directions. Evaluating them is hard. The IPCC has given multiple reports with multiple projections depending on different assumptions, so one can almost certainly select reports to show either a good or bad job of predicting. The reports sometimes describe what they produce as predictions, sometimes as projections. For simplicity I will use the former term. The past reports are webbed. To get a reasonably fair judgement, the obvious approach is to look at each, see what one would expect from reading it and how that compares with what happened. I have now done so. Skeptical readers are invited to check my summary for themselves, starting with the page that links to all of the reports. The executive summary of the first report, from 1990, contains: Under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, the average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the net century is estimated to be about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C to 0.5°C). The graph shown for the increase is close to a straight line at least from 2000 on, so it seems reasonable to ask whether the average increase from 1990 to the present is within that range. Figure 18 from the Second Assessment Report (1995) shows the future temperature through 2020. Through that date, it rises steadily at about .13°C/decade. The Third Assessment Report (2001) contains: For the periods 1990 to 2025 and 1990 to 2050, the projected increases are 0.4 to 1.1°C and 0.8 to 2.6°C, respectively. So for the former period, the average increase is supposed to be from .11 to .31 °C/decade. The Fourth Assessment Report (2007) has "For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emissions scenarios." Checking a graph on a NASA page, the increase from 1990 to 2013 was about .22°C, for an average rate of increase of about .1°C/decade. So if we judge IPCC reports by comparing what they said the average increase would be over the period from 1990 to the present with what it actually was, we find that the first report predicted a rate about three times what actually happened. The second report got it a little high. The third report got it substantially high. For both the first and third, the actual value was below the bottom of the predicted range of values. The fourth report was written in 2007 and predicted temperature change thereafter. Looking at the graph from the NASA page, temperature from then to now has been essentially flat, with the slope positive or negative depending on your choice of end points. It's too short a time period to evaluate the prediction with much confidence, but so far as one can judge it was high. So it looks as though the IPCC has predicted high four times out of four, two of the four times by a lot... daviddfriedman.blogspot.com

To: TimF who wrote (935188)	5/16/2016 1:18:37 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575535

"Also I don't think Gore was relying on 1896 sources." All climate science relies on that paper, along with 2 earlier ones, from Fourier and Tyndall. skepticalscience.com "Again see econlog.econlib.org" LMAO. Did those originally come from The Onion? You have a severe case of denial. You know why they're in a political blog, and not in a science journal? Cuz it ain't science. Do you really think that 100% of the world's scientific academies and organizations would agree on AGW based on 1.6% of all papers? Do you seriously think the National Academy of Science and the British Royal Academy statements were rammed thru by 1.6% of their members? Really? AGU has 62,000 members. Do you think only 990 members supported this position statement? What, the base turned out to vote, while 98% of the electorate stayed home? Give me a break. American Geophysical Union Releases Revised Position Statement on Climate Change Statement Highlights How Human Activities Are Changing Earth’s Climate and the Harmful Impact of that Change on Society news.agu.org