Page 53 of 228 FirstFirst ... 343515253545563103153 ... LastLast
Results 521 to 530 of 2276

Thread: OT: Politics

  1. #521
    as we have well established .... you posting something, and it being true, are not really the same thing.

    so, you ready to bet? my bet is that in 20 years we will see pretty much exactly what scientists and climatologists agree will happen. throughout this time, based on data they collect, they will revise and update there predictions, like a market economist would a 401(k) value, and in the end, they will be spot on.

    are you going to take me on this bet or just post more bullshit?
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  2. #522
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303


    Remember RPC 6 and 8.5 are considered 'business as usual', which is where we are right now in CO2 emissions.

    And even RPC2.6 isn't even reached.

    The MIT paper Steve brought up showed, in their model, 15% more warming on average than these RPC models, and had a smaller margin of error.

    If you are bored, here is a calculator for it.

    http://biocycle.atmos.colostate.edu/shiny/emissions/
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  3. #523
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post


    Remember RPC 6 and 8.5 are considered 'business as usual', which is where we are right now in CO2 emissions.

    And even RPC2.6 isn't even reached.

    The MIT paper Steve brought up showed, in their model, 15% more warming on average than these RPC models, and had a smaller margin of error.

    If you are bored, here is a calculator for it.

    http://biocycle.atmos.colostate.edu/shiny/emissions/
    this is the best one yet!

    graph shows model is spot the fuck on .... josh's post "OMG the model is way over predicting!"
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  4. #524
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    scientists and climatologists agree will happen
    There is no agreement. Dr. John Christy, and Lindzen and related are both scientists and climatologist. I showed that even Trenberth has low confidence in the final results in his emails. And he wrote the energy budget.
    ______________________

    Let's bet.

    There are two main paths, the IPCC predictions, and the Skeptic positions. The RPC predictions make a great baseline for the established AGW position, and I am fine with using them as a baseline.

    We can follow the 4 routes planned.

    If for some reason we stop our CO2 emissions, and follow RCP2.6, then we can use that as the baseline.
    If is is below the expected 'Business as Usual' then we can use RCP4.5.
    If it is business as usual, then we can use RCP6.
    If we hit RCP8.5, I will double the pot. Shit, if we hit RCP8.5, I will pay for your heating bill for a month and protest the oil company of your choice for an hour.

    Setting a bet for 20 years out, how about 10 years out? Or 2030? There are predictions to 2030. It can be within, say, 10% of that? 5%?

    http://www.climateprediction.eu/cc/M...till_2030.html



    So, if we hit 445ppm in 2030, that should be RCP6?

    If we play with the calculator: http://biocycle.atmos.colostate.edu/shiny/emissions/ then we see that cutting everything hits about 415 in 2030? So, RCP2.6 is PPM is 415?

    RCP4.5 - wanna do a middle of the road for that one? 430ppm? I think the real RCP4.5 in 2030 was a bit higher, but that will take a bit of research to confirm.

    Okay, what empirical dataset do you want to use?
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  5. #525
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    There is no agreement. Dr. John Christy, and Lindzen and related are both scientists and climatologist. I showed that even Trenberth has low confidence in the final results in his emails. And he wrote the energy budget.
    ______________________

    Let's bet.

    There are two main paths, the IPCC predictions, and the Skeptic positions. The RPC predictions make a great baseline for the established AGW position, and I am fine with using them as a baseline.

    We can follow the 4 routes planned.

    If for some reason we stop our CO2 emissions, and follow RCP2.6, then we can use that as the baseline.
    If is is below the expected 'Business as Usual' then we can use RCP4.5.
    If it is business as usual, then we can use RCP6.
    If we hit RCP8.5, I will double the pot. Shit, if we hit RCP8.5, I will pay for your heating bill for a month and protest the oil company of your choice for an hour.

    Setting a bet for 20 years out, how about 10 years out? Or 2030? There are predictions to 2030. It can be within, say, 10% of that? 5%?

    http://www.climateprediction.eu/cc/M...till_2030.html



    So, if we hit 445ppm in 2030, that should be RCP6?

    If we play with the calculator: http://biocycle.atmos.colostate.edu/shiny/emissions/ then we see that cutting everything hits about 415 in 2030? So, RCP2.6 is PPM is 415?

    RCP4.5 - wanna do a middle of the road for that one? 430ppm? I think the real RCP4.5 in 2030 was a bit higher, but that will take a bit of research to confirm.

    Okay, what empirical dataset do you want to use?
    there is, but at this point arguing with you is pointless. never argue with a true believer, as you have so well demonstrated, a graph or fact with an obvious conclusion, you will claim supports the opposite.

    there is a consensus as to what will happen given different human decisions, and that is what i am betting on.

    will you take that bet?
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  6. #526
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    graph shows model is spot the fuck on
    (squints)

    You might want to check your glasses. Gaslight much Gordon? Ha!

    (points to the room)

    You guys can see that the models are showing more warming, right?

    That the scale is way larger than Dr Spencer's graph there? That it doesn't show them lining up? Right there, at 2000, like in the zoomed in versions above, it doesn't warm as much as the models?

    Somebody please help Gordon see it...
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  7. #527
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    (squints)

    You might want to check your glasses. Gaslight much Gordon? Ha!

    (points to the room)

    You guys can see that the models are showing more warming, right?

    That the scale is way larger than Dr Spencer's graph there? That it doesn't show them lining up? Right there, at 2000, like in the zoomed in versions above, it doesn't warm as much as the models?

    Somebody please help Gordon see it...
    one wonders what, if any, technical analysis you are competent at?

    you graph directly disproves two talking points:

    1. the model was right all along
    2. its still predicting accuratly

    are you going to take the bet?
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  8. #528
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    there is, but at this point arguing with you is pointless. never argue with a true believer, as you have so well demonstrated, a graph or fact with an obvious conclusion, you will claim supports the opposite.
    Then this should be EASY money. Candy, sweet liquid candy, from a true believer.
    _____________________________________

    The RCP predictions are the 'Consensus' - as I outlined. I made a solid outline in my reply, with hard values and predictions, and not vague statements. I used the models as used by the IPCC, and which you had picked out in the graph previously. I was even really generous with the RCP values for RCP2.6 and 4.5. I made clear bonus bets for failing in a large manner, and exact ppm levels that determine which RCP version to use.

    I say whichever RCP prediction fits the CO2 output as outlined, it will show too much warming. The instrument record will show that temperature fell below the margin of error in which ever RCP case the CO2 level results in.

    Will YOU take the bet?
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  9. #529
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    The models tracked pre-2000. There was no argument there. The divergence was from 2000 on. You are getting confused with the scale of the model. To repeat a scaled up version so you can see how it is relative:



    If you are right, in 2030 we will see.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  10. #530
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    Then this should be EASY money. Candy, sweet liquid candy, from a true believer.
    _____________________________________

    The RCP predictions are the 'Consensus' - as I outlined. I made a solid outline in my reply, with hard values and predictions, and not vague statements. I used the models as used by the IPCC, and which you had picked out in the graph previously. I was even really generous with the RCP values for RCP2.6 and 4.5. I made clear bonus bets for failing in a large manner, and exact ppm levels that determine which RCP version to use.

    I say whichever RCP prediction fits the CO2 output as outlined, it will show too much warming. The instrument record will show that temperature fell below the margin of error in which ever RCP case the CO2 level results in.

    Will YOU take the bet?
    it is easy money. having the smartest scientists on earth and betting on them is easy money.

    i won't take that because you seem to not be able to understand your own graph showing the models being spot on, while claiming they say its less warming. your data analysis "skills" make a bet based on gray area's impossible.

    you have already claimed that climate change isn't happening, that would be your position in the bet.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •