The Inaccuracy of Alarmist Climate Projections

[longview]

It's not just the IPCC. It's every single scientific organization on the entire planet. No one is out to take people's hot and cold water away. There are ways of giving them that AND cut down on carbon emissions. But to do it, we first need to agree that it is something we need to do.

Addressing the real problem of energy will solve any issues that may exists with CO2.
The path forward requires energy, and we do not have enough fossil energy to supply the demand.

 

[longview]

Sure, there are a number of metropolises who didn't properly implement Light Rail. However, many did. I'm familiar with both Denver and Saint Louis, and both are success stories. Dallas and LA did pretty well. And many others. All of these that I mentioned could use a boost to further expand their systems. Houston probably needs a boost to reevaluate and rework theirs.

Houston needed a different solution to begin with, Rail especially not grade separated is too inflexible.

 

[ataraxia]

Addressing the real problem of energy will solve any issues that may exists with CO2.
The path forward requires energy, and we do not have enough fossil energy to supply the demand.

So then what is the problem with investing more in R&D of alternative energy technology? And what does AGW denialism have anything to do with any of this?

 

[longview]

So then what is the problem with investing more in R&D of alternative energy technology? And what does AGW denialism have anything to do with any of this?

I have no issues investing in R&D or alternative energy technology.
I do have issues with AGW claiming the science is settled mantle, when the uncertainty
has not improved in over 20 years.
It reflects poorly on the entire scientific community to make claims that are unsupported by data.
The concept does not even meet the basic requirements of a theory or hypothesis.

 

[ataraxia]

Where have you heard they have not improved in 20 years? Or that the entire scientific community is making claims unsupported by the data?

 

[longview]

Where have you heard they have not improved in 20 years? Or that the entire scientific community is making claims unsupported by the data?

The IPCC says the range of ECS for 2 X CO2 is between 1.5 and 4.5 C.
That same range for ECS has been around for over 20 years, I think it may go back to 1979.
One would think that with all the improvements in computers and all the money spent,
maybe we should have tightened up on the range a bit.

 

[finebead]

As already noted, the paper was published in a scholarly journal before it was reprinted in Scholarly Commons.

According to this, it was published in an "energy related" publication before it was archived by the school, unvetted.

Principle 5: Submit your paper to a reputable journal whose editors and peer reviewers will help improve your text and point out some of these subtle misconceptions.

Score: -2
Energy and Environment. Need we say more?

Green and Armstrong’s scientific forecast « RealClimate

Sounds like they did not do that.

 

[finebead]

I know what the IPCC says about why they don't "forecast." I think they're being dishonest about that.

Their explanation sounds imminently reasonable to me. If you have a problem with it, then state the problem and support your position. I am already on the record.

 

[Media_Truth]

Houston needed a different solution to begin with, Rail especially not grade separated is too inflexible.

Perhaps you have a negative outlook because of the early years of operation? It looks like ridership is way up more recently (2015).

https://www.ridemetro.org/MetroPDFs/AboutMETRO/RidershipReports/2015/1215_Ridership_Report_FY15.pdf

There were 1,430,552 boardings on all three light rail lines in December 2015. This is an increase of 378,488
boardings (or 36 percent increase) over December 2014. The opening of the Green and Purple lines in May
2015, an increase in the number of special events, and no service interruptions had a positive impact on rail.

I've always been an avid Light Rail proponent. However, it's not uncommon for many Right-Wingers to be extremely critical of Light Rail. Construction is always costly, and the Right loves to point fingers at the spending. Seldom do I hear the Right complain of highway expansions, and road construction. They love ASPHALT solutions.

Personally, I really appreciate the way Gore and Clinton spearheaded the Light Rail Initiative in the mid-90s. It appears that Houston did NOT build at that time, but I'm not sure. I only reviewed sketchy information. If they did miss out on those incentives, that's too bad, because it could have saved them a lot of money.

Last time I was in Houston, I rented a car, and traffic was horrible. There was road construction all over, and the gridlock was terrible. Talk about a waste of time and money, as person after person sits in their immobile vehicles, with air conditioners running. Large cities like Houston stand to gain the most from efficient Light Rail systems. Where buses usually add to traffic flow problems, Light Rail always alleviates traffic. For quality of life, it's a win for people who use it, and people who don't.

 

[Jack Hays]

Their explanation sounds imminently reasonable to me. If you have a problem with it, then state the problem and support your position. I am already on the record.

Their explanation sounds like PR spin to me.

 

[Jack Hays]

Their explanation sounds imminently reasonable to me. If you have a problem with it, then state the problem and support your position. I am already on the record.

I believe "eminently" was intended.

 

[Jack Hays]

According to this, it was published in an "energy related" publication before it was archived by the school, unvetted.


Green and Armstrong’s scientific forecast « RealClimate

Sounds like they did not do that.

Real Climate's consensus enforcement action is not a surprise.

I see you abandoned your false claim that G&A did not provide evidence of politics in the IPCC forecast.

 

[Lord of Planar]

They will not be invited to the next IPCC party!

Yeh, you're right.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The computer models being used have predicted everything from El Nino events to individual storms and even jet stream meanders. They are pretty darn good, and getting better all the time.

Really?

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

Do yopu really believe that?

LOL...

LOL...

 

[Threegoofs]

Really?

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

Do yopu really believe that?

LOL...

LOL...

Odd. Most scientists do.

Only the pretend scientists who 'subscribe to several journals' and have done no work on their own except for reading denier blogs disagree.

 

[finebead]

Their explanation sounds imminently reasonable to me. If you have a problem with it, then state the problem and support your position. I am already on the record.

Their explanation sounds like PR spin to me.

You did not state what the problem with their version is, and then show the support for your position. You have been unable to provide support for any of your positions, just your personal opinion, without any support. Fail.

 

[finebead]

I see you abandoned your false claim that G&A did not provide evidence of politics in the IPCC forecast.

I have not abandoned my position that G&A did not provide evidence of politics in the IPCC forecast. I read the report, and there is no support for that position in their report.

It is up to you to show the statements in the G&A report that argue convincingly enough to allow them to draw that conclusion, which I have told you before in this topic.

You still fail to be able to show such support for their conclusion on this point. That is why their report is poorly written, and why you lost this argument. You can't show the statements in their report that supports their conclusion that politics drove the IPCC report, among other points that they conclude without any support (this just happens to be one of the points).

 

[Steve Case]

The computer models being used have predicted everything from El Nino events to individual storms
and even jet stream meanders. They are pretty darn good, and getting better all the time.
​

Really?

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

Do yopu really believe that?

LOL...

LOL...

Pretty much my thoughts too

 

[Jack Hays]

I have not abandoned my position that G&A did not provide evidence of politics in the IPCC forecast. I read the report, and there is no support for that position in their report.

It is up to you to show the statements in the G&A report that argue convincingly enough to allow them to draw that conclusion, which I have told you before in this topic.

You still fail to be able to show such support for their conclusion on this point. That is why their report is poorly written, and why you lost this argument. You can't show the statements in their report that supports their conclusion that politics drove the IPCC report, among other points that they conclude without any support (this just happens to be one of the points).

You must have missed my #160.

 

[Jack Hays]

You did not state what the problem with their version is, and then show the support for your position. You have been unable to provide support for any of your positions, just your personal opinion, without any support. Fail.

The problem is the IPCC explanation is nothing but PR spin.

 

[finebead]

The problem is the IPCC explanation is nothing but PR spin.

You just need to show in the 2007 G & A report, where they provide evidence for them to draw that conclusion, instead of merely having published a "poorly written" report that fails to provide evidence for the conclusions that they draw.

 

[finebead]

Please note the report was first published in the journal Energy and Environment and then reprinted in Penn's Scholarly Commons.

Page 1009:

Principle 1.3“Make sure forecasts are independent of politics” is an example of a principle that is clearly violated by the IPCC process. This principle refers to keeping the forecasting process separate from the planning process. The term “politics” is used in the broad sense of the exercise of power. David Henderson, a former Head of Economics and Statistics at the OECD, gave a detailed account of how the IPCC process is directed by non-scientists who have policy objectives and who believe that anthropogenic global warming is real and dangerous (Henderson 2007). The clear violations we identified are listed in Table 1.

You must have missed my #160.

The problem with your post in #160 is that it did not come from G & A report, which leaves their report "poorly written". You are trying to make up for their deficiency, and say they had a creditable report, when clearly their report is deficient.

 

[Jack Hays]

The problem with your post in #160 is that it did not come from G & A report, which leaves their report "poorly written". You are trying to make up for their deficiency, and say they had a creditable report, when clearly their report is deficient.

My #160 provides a direct quote from the G&A report, and I provided the page number. You are wrong.

 

[Jack Hays]

You just need to show in the 2007 G & A report, where they provide evidence for them to draw that conclusion, instead of merely having published a "poorly written" report that fails to provide evidence for the conclusions that they draw.

No, I do not. My #160 provides ample evidence of the political nature of the IPCC document, while the term "PR spin" is my own, and reflects my opinion.