When scientists and their models got it so wrong - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 09:45:59 pm
content: two events that I experienced recently got me thinking.The North east of the US just got a snow storm earlier this week. It was billed as a historical blizzard, with new york city likely getting 2 - 3 ft of snow and the nyc-boston corridor 3+ft of snow, even a few hours before the blizzard was to hit. Every model was predicting huge snow fall.The cities were shot down, at a cost of $200 million for nyc alone; lots of assets brough to the costal area, etc.Well, new york city got maybe 6 - 7 inches of snow.Nice job, computer models.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 09:52:57 pm
content: The 2nd story was about a study on the benefits of bi-lingual.A pioneering team published an article a few years back, based on an experiment they did that suggested that bi-lingual folks have better executive command of their brains - they are less likely to be distracted and are better at making decisions in case of multiple (immaterial) uncertainties.Since then, multiple studies have shown similar results, and bi-lingual benefits have become a scientific consensus now.The only problem is that one of the researchers on the first team came forward recently, admitting that the team actually conducted four experiments. bi-lingual improvements showed up in only one of the four experiments and they simply threw away the other three experiments and never mentioned it.Worth yet, that researcher could never replicate the results from that experiment.Other researchers have since tracked similar results in scientific conferences and found that there is a huge tendency to publish on "successful results" (as in "I found XYZ") rather than "unsuccessful results" (as in "I didn't find XYZ").Moral of the story? Well, if you get it, you don't need me to show you; If you don't get it, you don't need to show you either,

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 09:53:56 pm
content: QuoteGlobal warming must have evaporated that other 18" of snow as they fell,

author: mrflibble
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 10:02:29 pm
content: I'd blame US funding of weather prediction centers for the ball suckage. Over the past few years I've read several articles from various unrelated sources that were centered on that complaint. Due to lack of funding their (US) forecasting capability was significantly behind their European counterparts.As I recall a large part of it was related to pure raw computing power, and another part was related to getting your shit together and incorporate better (as in known to yield better results for the same computational buck) models. Both of these cost money.

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 10:22:52 pm
content: As I see it, there were two things going on with the "historic blizzard". (Actually, what the NWS said was "a nor'easter of historic proportions", which if you think about it is less ridiculous.) The first is an abundance of caution. Many people still remember the 1978 storm that stranded hundreds in their cars on highways. So prohibiting travel had the benefit of ensuring that wouldn't happen.The second is the media hype machine that magnifies that news far beyond the point of reason. It's actually somebody's job to come up with words like "Snowmageddon" and "Snowpocalypse", and The Weather Channel is now naming its own storms, outside the auspices of the official system for naming cyclones that could become hurricanes.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 10:37:59 pm
content: Based on the title of the post I see 2 possibilities:1. The OP does not understand the difference between science and weather forecasting.2. Troll.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 10:42:06 pm
content: QuoteWhich I actually prefer: it is a lot easier to say "remember snow storm juno?" than "do you remember that 3rd snow storm in 2015 that didn't quite make it as big as it could?"

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 10:44:55 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on January 28, 2015, 10:37:59 pmAt the very least, that.We had the coldest Australia Day in 50 years on the weekend, so what?If this thread turns into anti-AGW conspiracy central (which I suspect is the OP's intention) then it will be locked.Take that stuff to another forum.

author: DIPLover
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 10:56:14 pm
content: I blame TV.Just like the "Polar Vortex" from last year... Interesting and unusual how far south it went last year. But up here, we get them every year.But now that they got that new kickass name... Now it's something big. Just like they're now reporting windchill and humidex as temperature! (Complete with "degree" and even "Celcius") appended...Just so they can keep you interested a minute longer so you can watch 3 more Pick-up truck ads.Just don't watch it. It's brain solvent.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 11:03:55 pm
content: QuoteI actually really liked that name - very graphic.

author: Skimask
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 11:10:51 pm
content: I blame the general public of not understanding the chaotic nature of weather in general and that it's not a perfect science and the inherent ability of the masses to completely and utterly trust another person/entity without investing 3 of their own brain cells into thinking about the nature of the problem at hand. Gives those same people a reason to blame somebody else for their own shortcomings in good decision making in general.In other words, morons don't know what they don't know.You never hear them praise the weather forecasters the other 99.99% of the time when they got the forecast pretty damn close.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2015, 11:22:00 pm
content: Wow... danny... these are some pretty serious accusations. Are you saying that people might sometimes lie? And that scientists also sometimes lie? And that sometimes these get published?That's never happened before!One lie does not a failure make. Frauds are frequently discovered in science. Doesn't make all results fraudulent.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 12:04:08 am
content: QuoteThe tendency for the masses to blind trust a source seems to be more concentrated in a group that's educated but poorly educated - knowing a little bit science tends to magically transform those people into religious fanatics.The "uneducated" tend to rely on their common sense and the well educated tend to be able to think critically on their own.It is those in the middle that tend to be the trouble makers.

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 12:15:17 am
content: The weather forecasts around here (upstate NY) generally seem to be quite accurate, and wedidget shit on by an angry cloud (it just wasn'tthatangry). Perhaps media, government, and possibly OP don't understand probability and statistics? All three have demonstrated tendencies in that direction...

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 12:17:40 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 28, 2015, 09:45:59 pmDanny, look at the bright side, the exaggerated forecast eventually got a reality check. Reality wins.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 12:22:23 am
content: Quote from: c4757p on January 29, 2015, 12:15:17 amWe at the west coast are constantly bombard with east coast weather news that we don't really care about. The reason is that most news outlets are headquartered on the east cost.

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 12:26:06 am
content: Sorry?

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 02:16:39 am
content: Quote from: c4757p on January 29, 2015, 12:26:06 amWhy? Do you work for a news organization?

author: sleemanj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 02:56:01 am
content: Most of the time, weather predictions are pretty good. Sometimes it doesn't work out.Guess which of these two cases people notice.Weather is not a phenomena we can simply simulate and say "this is exactly what will happen", at best we can have a pretty good guess, using data, and also a good deal of human intuition, knowledge, and experience.Predicting climate, the big picture, the long average, easy (for a climatologist).Predicting weather, the small picture, the noise floor to the climate's signal, HARD (no matter who you are).

author: kxenos
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 04:18:57 am
content: For anyone that thinks this is bad, please try to remember what a weather forecast was like 20 years ago. You didn't have 2-week forecast or even a 5-day one. Most farmers where better in predicting weather. On Saturday I heard "tomorrow there will be heavy raining around 6pm". Sunday morning the sun was shinning, there wasn't a single cloud in the sky and we had around 18C, I was thinking "not possible", Sunday around 6pm I was like what dafuc is happening?? I had to think that the leftists that won the elections had something to do with it...

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 04:29:09 am
content: I lived for a few years in a town where you did not need a weather forcaster. 365 days a year it was the following: Sunny and hot. There were a lot of farmers that considered it might be a drought if there was no rain every 2 decades.

author: ajb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 04:54:33 am
content: NWS forecasts predicted 1-2" for my area, which is exactly what we got--at least before it turned to slush.Notably, this was in stark contrast to for-profit news & media outlets that were doing their damnedest to turn the remote chance of another snowmaggedon into pageviews. Although in their (meager) defense, the NWS forecast had us wavering between 1-2" and 3-4" for a while--still not quite snowmageddon, though.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 05:01:26 am
content: Quote from: ajb on January 29, 2015, 04:54:33 am"The US National Weather Service (NWS) has admitted its forecasts were wrong, after predicting a "potentially historic blizzard" would strike New York City."http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30996010

author: sleemanj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 05:08:09 am
content: Quote from: SeanB on January 29, 2015, 04:29:09 am

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 07:44:42 am
content: Quote from: Skimask on January 28, 2015, 11:10:51 pmHas nothing to do with education, I've been to school with plenty of people who were as stup[id and uneducated when the came out as when they went in.

author: AndreasF
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 10:26:14 am
content: Since everybody seems to have the weather example covered well, let me comment on the bilingualism research. The tendency by scientists to publish (primarily) positive results is a well-known and recognized phenomenon calledpublication bias. There are many reasons why it exists (and persists), but as said it is recognized by scientists as problematic, and there are mechanisms in place to deal with it (e.g. during so called meta-analyses). In general, it's wise to wait for independent(!) replication of findings, but even then it might take some time before a clearer picture emerges (e.g. some labs may be able to replicate, others may not). Science on people (medicine, psychology) is messy![edit: left out "positive results"]

author: KedasProbe
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 10:39:54 am
content: There must be some funny video somewhere were the scientist start with there is x% chance of x amount of snow in that area and before the info is relayed 5 times it's snowmageddon for sure.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 10:57:29 am
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on January 29, 2015, 10:50:41 amHere we go, name calling again.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 11:00:44 am
content: My thoughts on this:Weather forecasting is a statistical chance that something happens on a certain time T.The uncertainty is high since winds can change direction etc. etc.So the uncertainty decreases over time till it reaches 0 at time T.Now politicians and city law/health organizations have the duty to minimize the amount of human casualties in a certain dangerous event.If a weatherforecaster says that a dangerous event might take place (he will never say that it will take place if he is a professional) than the politicians and city organizations are nervous. They have to wager if the event will or will not take place and what the consequences will be if it takes place.Since they can not take action too short time before T (since evacuation will not happen in time) they have to notify everybody too far ahead in time.So what is the worst:1) nobody gets warned and it does happen and you loose a couple of hundred lifes and you get blamed and don't get re-elected2) everybody gets warned , you loose a couple of M$ (theoretically) since $ are virtual currency anyway.Since the US just like other western countries nowadays like to keep their citizens afraid, 2) is the best option for any city organization.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 11:54:31 am
content: QuoteFor the politicians, yes; not quite so for the citizenry.The point is that models, if you understand them, are highly fallable. It is the ignorant that treat models like gospel.BTW, they did run the european models and they were consistently wrong with the US models.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 11:56:56 am
content: QuoteAbsolutely true.On top of that, there is practically no way to backtest one's climate prediction - as the time scale is on hundreds of years.Backtesting weather forecast, on the other hand, is so easy.That's why no climate models so far have withstood the backtesting on historical climate data: they couldn't predict the history.

author: atferrari
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 12:11:21 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 28, 2015, 09:52:57 pmThe above shows that dishonest scientists also exist not that modrels are wrong. They well could be right.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 12:26:03 pm
content: Biased scientists?That cannot be true.To the faithful, all scientists are saints, particularly those climatologists. They are only motivated by the human goodness, not by power, money, fame, funding, ..., that you mere mortals worry about.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 12:34:24 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 29, 2015, 12:26:03 pmBlasphemy!

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 12:45:43 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 29, 2015, 12:26:03 pmthat is why other scientists cross check research and the fakers can often be called out

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 01:05:00 pm
content: Power, money, fame? As a climatologist?I'm sure we went over this before.Climatology isn't particularly well paid - most EEs would make more than a climate scientists. And whilst grant money exists, scientists rarely see this beyond keeping their salary paid for another year.It's also important to note that you can make a lot more money from science by supporting the other side. I wonder how much Big Oil would pay for a senior climatologist to change their mind and push their views... I would guess it would be a lot more than what their mere academic post would grant them.No serious academic organisation awards bonuses for producing a particular result. And science is constantly cross-checking itself for errors. A famous example being (former) Dr. Wakefield... and the case of the faster-than-light neutrinos... or the cold fusion fraud...A fraud on the scale you suggest would require thousands of scientists collaborating in unison. This is outright ridiculous. How could such a fraud be perpetuated without at least one scientist - hey, even a lab-monkey-PhD student - noticing? I mean seriously. Over 97% of scientists are in agreement AND there's data to back up the belief. This isn't even up for debate any more. The "science is settled" - well, I don't like that phrase - but essentially, disagreement that this consensus exists or suggestion that there is some kind of conspiracy is an anti-science position.Can you try a more original argument? You should consider providing a sourced data-set or a serious academic paper... or something better than "hur duh a weather forecast was wrong therefore its all lies!"

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 02:32:23 pm
content: Since a blooper in 1987 the weather forecasts have tended to ever towards the worst case scenario here in the UK. But I have noticed that one TV channel will say rain another a chance of rain and yet another will say no rain, all the information comes from the met office and very often the TV forecasters are met office employees not TV, they must be just covering their backsides, one has to be right principle so we cannot be blamed for the storm damage as happened in 1987.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 02:46:05 pm
content: QuoteBetween the two of them, the met office has guaranteed itself a 100% accuracy rate,Kind like when the faithful went from global warming to global climate change - they win either way.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 03:28:30 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 29, 2015, 02:46:05 pmThe Met Office in the UK produces and sells one forecast to many broadcasters. Do you have any evidence suggesting otherwise? From personal experience, all UK TV networks tend to have the same forecast... they'll use different language to express it, or ignore things like "chance of rain"Quote from: dannyf on January 29, 2015, 02:46:05 pmWorth a read:http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htmIn particular:Quote

author: GreyWoolfe
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 03:44:30 pm
content: Quote from: AcHmed99 on January 29, 2015, 12:09:12 amOur weathermen here in central Florida get to take a vacation in the summer. Same forecast every day. Daytime temps in the upper 90's, overnight temps high 70's-low 80's, heat index over 100 and 50% chance of rain. They only need to stop playing canasta when there is a hurricane.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 03:46:23 pm
content: Quote from: mrflibble on January 28, 2015, 10:02:29 pmWeather models are far far from being simple. That particular one I of is using 26 parameters, 1Km grid for the data, and differential equalizations between the parameters to calculate what will happen. They developed it based on past data, and it is working quite good, only it predicts weather slower than the actual time passes with a 14 teraflops computer. And no, you cannot use GPUs for this.Not to mention the uncertanty of the measurement. You change one parameter, say the temperature by one degrees, and it is awesome to see how the predictions start to "ramble". They call this spaghetti plot, or similar names. Whoever claims that they foretasted the weather for more than about a week is lying, or has no clue. Or lives in the UK where it is always raining.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 03:54:40 pm
content: QuoteThey are simple only to the simple-minded ignorants, ;0Weather forecasting is one of the primary reasons to develop supercomputers.

author: Galenbo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 04:11:56 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 28, 2015, 09:52:57 pmNever believe that science-ish reports.Everything outside the STEM/medical/economic/law field is excluvely written to keep the dollars flow to their so-called university, and to get in the mainstream media.Remember the study about hard-rock listeners, who were more often involved in agression than listeners of classic music?Turned out to be a big scam, but the department didn't close down, the guy wasn't forced to pay back all the wasted money.

author: Galenbo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 04:16:23 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on January 29, 2015, 10:50:41 amAnother Classic denier argument - weather and temperatures didn't change a fuck more than they were the last million years. But the human-climate-change does exist.And therefore: We need to construct more nuclear plants, needed to construct solar panels and wind mills.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 04:47:10 pm
content: Most of the green energy industry seems to be against nuclear, but they never explain how wind and solar can provide without some kind of base load. (Enormous grid storage being excluded.)

author: ajb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 06:29:26 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 29, 2015, 04:47:10 pmThe problem with nuclear is largely economic. The costs to build and maintain a plant are so tremendous that you pretty much need that plant to be operating at maximum capacity 24hrs a day for its entire lifetime to be able to break even--and that's before even accounting for spent fuel disposal and the potential cost of an accident. Since solar and wind are not continuous or controllable, you want to shift as much demand as possible to renewable sources when they are available, but be able to fall back to something else when they're not. If that something else is nuclear, then every kWh you shift to renewables just puts your nuclear plant further in the red. So even assuming that the nuclear plant is physically capable of handling the rapid load shifts required to maximize exploitation of renewables, economically it's a terrible match. (Unless maybe you have a massive amount of storage to buffer renewable energy against demand, but that's a whole 'nother problem.) Combined cycle natural gas would be a better match for solar & wind--it's still going to emit some carbon, but a combined cycle plant is efficient, and generating units can be provisioned to respond quickly to peaks in demand and valleys in other production.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 07:08:24 pm
content: Greetings EEVBees:--The trouble is not the AGW consensus. It is the juggernaut of government expenditures on green technology which is unlikely to accomplish much compared to nuclear technology. It also seems very unlikely that the AGW problem is just serious enough to require renewables but not so serious at to require the use of nuclear.--All models have their problems. The model the IPCC is using has been running hot these last 18 years, compared to a simpler program developed by the Chinese which conforms much better to actual measurements.http://phys.org/news/2015-01-peer-reviewed-pocket-calculator-climate-exposes-errors.html?utm_source=nwletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly-nwletter"Once errors like these are corrected, the most likely global warming in response to a doubling of CO2 concentration is not 3.3 °C but 1 °C or less. Even if all available fossil fuels were burned, less than 2.2 °C warming would result."--Keep in mind the above is just a model. Time could prove it wrong as well."Injustice is relatively easy to bear; what stings is justice."H. L. Mencken 1880 - 1956Best RegardsClear Ether

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 07:14:08 pm
content: Quote from: SgtRock on January 29, 2015, 07:08:24 pmFrom the above:"A major peer-reviewed climate physics paper in the first issue (January 2015: vol. 60 no. 1) of the prestigious Science Bulletin (formerly Chinese Science Bulletin), the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences"Yep - just as I thought. More climate denial trolling.Oh, and for some actual data:

author: MacAttak
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 07:25:56 pm
content: Keep your eye on the man, not on the dog. I forget who said that, but he was probably a smart guy.I spent some time working at The Weather Channel a few years ago. It's a big company, with many hundreds of employees, but you can count the number of actual scientists in the building there on just one hand (and those folks are also doing double-duty as media personalities). In other words - "meteorology" today is almost entirely a branch of the entertainment sector, with little to do with actual science. It shouldn't come as a surprise when they are totally wrong about near-term weather events.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 07:32:46 pm
content: QuoteSo the paper is not trustworthy because it was published in the wrong country by the wrong people?Can anyone being more superficial and dare I say less racist?Well, I guess when it comes to liberal tree-hugging environmental faithfuls, one do need to expect the worst.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 07:34:39 pm
content: QuoteFor their credit, the IPCC predictions have become less and less hotter as time goes by.Maybe reality did finally set in? or they are too embarrassed by their wild guesses?

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 07:37:48 pm
content: Greetings EEVBees:--So now Physics.org is a denier. Good to know."In the twenty-first century, the robot will take the place which slave labor occupied in ancient civilization."Nikola Tesla 1856 - 1943Best RegardsClear Ether

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 07:45:19 pm
content: Quote from: SgtRock on January 29, 2015, 07:37:48 pmNo, Physics.org was just reporting on one article from a Chinese journal (Far out of the mainstream of climate science) that was comparing their model to a 25 year old model from the IPCC.This has nothing to do with the actual history of the accuracy of climate modeling as a whole. The 1990 IPCC model had several scenarios - one was a scenario where CO2 emissions increased far above what they actually did. That particular scenario did not occur and the temperature rise that would have occurred if it had unsurprisingly did not happen. The model was pretty good at prediction what would happen given the amount of CO2 rise that did occur. More refined models have been even better. Many have actually underestimated that amount of temperature rise.If you actually have any interest in the facts regarding IPCC models versus what has happened (highly doubtful based on your history of posts) have a look here:IPCC overestimate temperature rise-What the science says...More likely you and your cohorts will continue to start more threads ignoring all the past discussions of the same topic and previously referenced factual information and with the same intent of spreading FUD.I'm really starting to wonder if some of you are being paid for posting this nonsense.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 07:50:55 pm
content: Climate change or not, we should be mindful of the crap we're pumping into the environment (and I'm not talking about Carbon Dioxide). There is plenty of other stuff that will kill us long before we need to worry about the sun engulfing the planet.It seems everyone in this thread has already formed their own opinions about "climate change" and no other comment is going to change that. Rather than turn this into a long running battle, perhaps it's time this thread is locked. No one is getting any more educated by reading it.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 08:01:55 pm
content: Well it turns out that the lead author of the paper Sgt. Rock references is none other thanLord MonktonYes, that Lord Monkton. Not a scientist but a well know climate change denial campaigner.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 08:29:42 pm
content: Greeting EEVBees:--So Physics.org is not a denier, just folks who read or write its articles.http://phys.org/news/2015-01-peer-reviewed-pocket-calculator-climate-exposes-errors.html?utm_source=nwletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly-nwletter"Next, the four researchers applied the model to studying why the official models concur in over-predicting global warming. In 1990, the UN's climate panel predicted with "substantial confidence" that the world would warm at twice the rate that has been observed since."--Please note that, neither I nor the article above, denied AGW. IPCC predictions is what is being criticized. The hope is that by accusing the article of denying AGW, you will be persuaded that an article in a respected science journal, should not be read. So all of this denier talk is pure ad hominem.--People who believe the Bible is inerrant cannot allow even one small mistake or inconsistency, to be shown without claiming the critic is in the service of Satan. I see a similar mind set here. Notice just how personal and hostile some of the posts are. If the IPCC's predictions were correct, instead of too hot, we would not be having this discussion."To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."François, Marie Arouet - Voltaire1694 - 1778Best RegardsClear Ether

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 08:35:02 pm
content: Posting a graph from Lord Monkton is not a way to be taken seriously on the issue of climate science.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 08:35:32 pm
content: Am I missing something here, but where does the "Observations" data come from past 2015...? Assuming the DeLorean was actually destroyed in that crash...

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 08:41:11 pm
content: QuoteI would agree with that,

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 08:50:38 pm
content: Quote from: MacAttak on January 29, 2015, 07:25:56 pmActually the Weather Channel got it right, the government's scientists didn't.http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/01/27/how_everyone_but_the_weather_channel_botched_the_nyc_blizzard_forecast.htmlhttp://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30996010I would expect that as the storm time approaches, models should converge better with reality and mayor should not have to shutdown the city. It's one thing to forecast for next week, it's another for next day.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 08:52:24 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 29, 2015, 08:41:11 pmIf sufficient data was presented showing a significant fraud, or perhaps, some kind of missed information like the sun heating up the planet more rapidly than expected, then I would change my mind. So convince me.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 29, 2015, 09:26:32 pm
content: The climate models are not perfect, they are still being worked on and passed data is still being reanalysed by for example the climate prediction.net project. The problem with the 1987 storm was that the computers were not powerful enough to crunch the models of the day and they kept throwing new information at it faster than it could process previous information whereas they may have done better to just leave the old information in and see what it predicted. Computers are now a lot better but no doubt our understanding of climate is a lot more complex and so are the models than they were in 1987 and we still don't have perfect models. The climate prediction.net project is re-analysing I believe the last 50 years of data to try and understand how weather works and how to predict future weather better, and to achieve this it is using thousands of volunteer computers which probably vastly out power any current weather forecasting computer yet it will still take years to trawl through the data.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 30, 2015, 05:00:50 am
content: Greetings EEVBees:--Year by year the IPCC lowers its predictions for temperature increase, while simultaneously claiming the threat is worse than ever. Indeed the IPCC does have 2500 of the worlds best scientists working the problem. But the decisions as to what to publish are made by just a few people in leadership, as it is very difficult to believe that a majority of the 2500 would have supported the conclusion that the glaciers in the Himalayas would disappear by 2035. The IPCC also claims it is neutral with regard to policy. Does anybody actually believe that.http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake--The Indian government criticised the IPCC's glaciers claim in November at the launch of its own discussion paper, written by geologist Vijay Kumar Raina, which admitted that while some glaciers in the Himalayas were retreating, it was "nothing out of the ordinary. Nothing to suggest as some have said that they will disappear."http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/IPCC-retracts-2035-alarm-on-Himalayan-glacier-melt/articleshow/5482397.cms"What's remarkable is that this deadline was hotly contested by the Indian government. The IPCC team, led by TERI chief R K Pachauri, brushed aside these objections and didn't even care to double-check its facts, even though the conclusion of its findings meant as dramatic a development as the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers in the next 25 years."http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html"The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.""When this report was issued, Raj Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, denounced it as ‘voodoo science’."--Pachauri has since admitted the accuracy of the report. "Voodoo science" is IPCC for denier. I guess the Guardian, the Times of India, and the Daily Mail are all denier publications."“Had his brain been constructed of silk, he would have been hard put to it to find sufficient material to make a canary a pair of cami-knickers.” "P. G. Wodehouse 1881 - 1975Best RegardsClear Ether

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2015, 05:15:10 am
content: Wow ! The IPCC finds a mistake made in1 paragraphof one 938 page report and then appropriately admits the error.Stop the presses! After searching endlessly for yet another way to spread FUD, Sgt Rock has found yet another molehill to make a mountain out of.In case anyone actually cares about the facts,HEREis the IPCC statement the Guardian article refers to and here is what it says (emphasis mine):"The Synthesis Report, the concluding document of the Fourth Assessment Report of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (page 49) stated: “Climate change is expected toexacerbate current stresses on water resources from population growth and economic and land-usechange, including urbanisation. On a regional scale, mountain snow pack, glaciers and small icecaps play a crucial role in freshwater availability. Widespread mass losses from glaciers andreductions in snow cover over recent decades are projected to accelerate throughout the 21stcentury, reducing water availability, hydropower potential, and changing seasonality of flows inregions supplied by meltwater from major mountain ranges (e.g. Hindu-Kush, Himalaya, Andes),where more than one-sixth of the world population currently lives.”This conclusion is robust, appropriate, and entirely consistent with the underlying science and thebroader IPCC assessment.It has, however, recently come to our attention thata paragraph in the 938-page Working Group IIcontribution to the underlying assessment refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate ofrecession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. In drafting the paragraph inquestion, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures,were not applied properly.The Chair, Vice-Chairs, and Co-chairs of the IPCC regret the poor application of well-establishedIPCC procedures in this instance. This episode demonstrates that the quality of the assessmentdepends on absolute adherence to the IPCC standards, including thorough review of “the qualityand validity of each source before incorporating results from the source into an IPCC Report” 3. Wereaffirm our strong commitment to ensuring this level of performance. "BTW you do realize that the IPCC is nto the be all end all of climate science, right? It is just one international body that tries to pull together work from thousands of independent scientists around the world who publish their research completely independently.I'm starting to wonder Sgt Rock - are you being paid by the Heartland Institute or some other astroturf organization to repeatedly restart these pointless discussions?

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2015, 05:24:23 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on January 30, 2015, 05:00:50 amIndia is a nation of deniers:"MUMBAI: Two of three scientists at a session on climate change and society at the Indian Science Congress on Tuesday felt fears of man-made global warming were greatly exaggerated."http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/global-warming/Fears-of-man-made-global-warming-exaggerated/articleshow/45786412.cmsJust accept it, the science is settled. Pay you carbon tax and move on with your life.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2015, 05:30:32 am
content: My gosh, 2 more scientists in the denier camp! ( well not actually deniers if you read the article)What does that bring the total up to now? 10? 20? 200? out of thousands.It's all a hoax. A big conspiracy to get the Heartland institute and other fossil fuel industry funded organizations to blow their money for nothing!

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 30, 2015, 05:57:26 am
content: It seems noone could let it go, it just had to turn into an AGW argument. Congrats, thread locked.