Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math

Search:


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
>> No.12764749 [View]
File: 216 KB, 1024x939, Models-and-observations-annual-1970-2000-baseline-simple-1970-1024x939.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12764749

>>12764728
I'm not sure where you're getting your information from but global temperature has fallen pretty much exactly within the 95%+ confidence interval always. That kind of accuracy can't just be dismissed by an MS paint drawing.
> Literally all their predictions are failing.
what predictions? provide a single failed prediction from a peer reviewed source.

>An Inconvenient Truth
I don't really care about popsci movies so I've never seen it. Either way it's hardly relevant to the discussion.
>All of it is big data driven, based on no fundamental model.
the fundamental model is the earth's energy budget. Not sure how it's possible to miss this.

>> No.12717466 [View]
File: 216 KB, 1024x939, Models-and-observations-annual-1970-2000-baseline-simple-1970-1024x939.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12717466

>>12717457
pretty much dead on actually

>> No.11137520 [View]
File: 216 KB, 1024x939, Models-and-observations-annual-1970-2000-baseline-simple-1970-1024x939.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11137520

>>11137235
While troposphere tends to be on the lower end of models predictions, surface, sea surface and global average are all exactly within the highest confidence range. The fact you ignore this just proves you're pushing an agenda and don't care about the truth.

>> No.11072396 [View]
File: 216 KB, 1024x939, Models-and-observations-annual-1970-2000-baseline-simple-1970-1024x939.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11072396

>>11072378
>The IPCC Guidance Note on Uncertainty a defines a common approach to evaluating and communicating the degree of certainty in findings of the assessment process. Each finding is grounded in an evaluation of underlying evidence and agreement. In many cases, a synthesis of evidence and agreement supports an assignment of confidence, especially for findings with stronger agreement and mul-tiple independent lines of evidence. The degree of certainty in each key finding of the assessment is based on the type, amount, quality and consistency of evidence (e.g., data, mechanistic understanding, theory, models, expert judgment) and the degree of agreement. The summary terms for evidence are: limited, medium or robust. For agreement, they are low, medium or high. Levels of confidence include five qualifiers: very low, low, medium, high and very high, and are typeset in italics, e.g., medium confidence. The likelihood, or probability, of some well-defined outcome having occurred or occurring in the future can be described quantitatively through the follo-wing terms: virtually certain, 99–100% probability; extremely likely, 95–100%; very likely, 90–100%; likely, 66–100%; more likely than not, >50–100%; about as likely as not, 33–66%; unlikely, 0–33%; very unlikely, 0–10%; extremely unlikely, 0–5%; and exceptionally unlikely,0–1%. Additional terms (extremely likely, 95–100%; more likely than not, >50–100%; more unlikely than likely, 0–<50%; and extremely unlikely, 0–5%) may also be used when appropriate. Assessed likelihood is typeset in italics, e.g., very likely. Unless otherwise indicated, findings assigned a likelihood term are associated with high or very high confidence. Where appropriate, findings are also formulated as statements of fact without using uncertainty qualifiers. {WGI SPM B, WGII Background Box SPM.3, WGIII 2.1}

good thing the models are doing fucking great

>> No.11047411 [View]
File: 216 KB, 1024x939, Models-and-observations-annual-1970-2000-baseline-simple-1970-1024x939.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11047411

>>11047260
I'm honestly in awe of the hoops you're having to jump through to justify your cherypicked data and outright lies. You compared models which predict GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMP to ONLY mid troposphere equatorial datasets. Why did you only choose those data sets? because if you compare apples to apples your narrative falls apart and you're left with only the cold harsh reality. Something you can't deal with.

>> No.11021972 [View]
File: 216 KB, 1024x939, Models-and-observations-annual-1970-2000-baseline-simple-1970-1024x939.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11021972

>>11021956
nah the basics are pretty simple, actually providing meaningful useful predictions is incredibly difficult, fortunately modern climatology is pretty fucking good.

>> No.11020514 [View]
File: 216 KB, 1024x939, Models-and-observations-annual-1970-2000-baseline-simple-1970-1024x939.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11020514

>>11020457
>comparing global average temp to lower troposphere only
oh look he's retarded

>> No.11014626 [View]
File: 216 KB, 1024x939, Models-and-observations-annual-1970-2000-baseline-simple-1970-1024x939.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11014626

>>11014600
doing pretty fucking good it seems

>> No.11012528 [View]
File: 216 KB, 1024x939, Models-and-observations-annual-1970-2000-baseline-simple-1970-1024x939.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11012528

>>11012525

>> No.10989491 [View]
File: 216 KB, 1024x939, Models-and-observations-annual-1970-2000-baseline-simple-1970-1024x939.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10989491

>>10989455

>> No.10950115 [View]
File: 216 KB, 1024x939, Models-and-observations-annual-1970-2000-baseline-simple-1970-1024x939.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10950115

>>10950070
citation needed

>> No.10891274 [View]
File: 216 KB, 1024x939, Models-and-observations-annual-1970-2000-baseline-simple-1970-1024x939.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10891274

>>10891253
>can't predict anything
models are looking spot on, where's your source for this?

>> No.10842462 [View]
File: 216 KB, 1024x939, Models-and-observations-annual-1970-2000-baseline-simple-1970-1024x939.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10842462

>>10842458
Here's what an actual apples to apples comparison of models and measurements looks like. Amazing what cherrypicking can acomplish.

>> No.10749775 [View]
File: 216 KB, 1024x939, Models-and-observations-annual-1970-2000-baseline-simple-1970-1024x939.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10749775

>>10749759
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

>> No.10735696 [View]
File: 216 KB, 1024x939, Models-and-observations-annual-1970-2000-baseline-simple-1970-1024x939.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10735696

>>10735657
Oh hey look someone who claims to be an intelligent skeptic using a graph that compares models which are predicting global average temp to troposphere only data. Gee I wonder why.



Navigation
View posts [+24] [+48] [+96]