Guardian.UK: Climate Priests withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
Who is frightened, exactly? Why would anybody be afraid of a rise of 1.5m over 100 years? Not exactly a tsunami.
Because they and their families have lived at 1.2 meters above MSL for 150 years? :)
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Because they and their families have lived at 1.2 meters above MSL for 150 years?
Stilts? :) However, they can rest secure in the knowledge that concerned Governments and NGOs will spare no effort in resettling them before the end of the century. I understand that some[^] are ready to take their children now.
Bob Emmett @ Ynys Thanatos
-
Sure, its just odd how all the errors and honest mistakes in GW papers always lead to more warming and more alarming outcomes. One wold expect honest mistakes to go both ways. No?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Not really, not if the baseline assumptions used where low. Given that people like you decry every possible or invented failure they have they would be likely to make more conservative(but reality based, as such having nothing to do with the American definition of conservative) estimates than the possibilities may allow them to make. Thus weighting things toward the low end of possibility, making it far more likely that mistakes would actually make things appear far worse.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Because they and their families have lived at 1.2 meters above MSL for 150 years?
Stilts? :) However, they can rest secure in the knowledge that concerned Governments and NGOs will spare no effort in resettling them before the end of the century. I understand that some[^] are ready to take their children now.
Bob Emmett @ Ynys Thanatos
-
RichardM1 wrote:
OH NO! Now AGW causes CHILD ABUSE!
Are you going to tell fat_boy, or shall I?
Bob Emmett @ Ynys Thanatos
-
Nah, still dont buy it. If there is warming, and trees respnd weakly, then they will still show increased ring width. There is no decline there ot hode. The only decline possible is a decline in temperature or ring width. And hiding that is dishonest.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Unless of course they're talking about a decline in the growth rate, or a decline in some other correlation that they're using to derive this. I highly doubt that it's as simple as "Temperature = Width of Ring * X"
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Not really, not if the baseline assumptions used where low. Given that people like you decry every possible or invented failure they have they would be likely to make more conservative(but reality based, as such having nothing to do with the American definition of conservative) estimates than the possibilities may allow them to make. Thus weighting things toward the low end of possibility, making it far more likely that mistakes would actually make things appear far worse.
Distind wrote:
Not really, not if the baseline assumptions used where low.
??? We are talking about errors. Errors dont fall withing an SD curve, errors arent intelligent, errors are random chance fuckups. Fat fingering a calculator when doing a calculation, putting the decimal point on the wrong place. Hey, I did Mechanical Aeronautical engineering. There are a lot of calculations involved, perhaps as an IT trained guy you dont realise just how intensive it is, but its the same in climate science, in fact some of the formula used are the same. Thes are errors. And random errors would err randomly. But they dont, they alwatys err towards warming? Why? Well, as we were always told in engineering, guesstimate the expected value. Then do your calculation and see if its in the ballpark. If it is, then OK, if not, then recheck. And this is good. SO, in climate science the guestimation or expected result is WARM. So they do the calc, make a mistake, and it comes out WARM. He, bingo, lets write it up. If they do the same and it comes out cold, then they recheck their calculations and correct the error. Can you see now how a level of bias in the expectation has squewed the results?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Unless of course they're talking about a decline in the growth rate, or a decline in some other correlation that they're using to derive this. I highly doubt that it's as simple as "Temperature = Width of Ring * X"
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Given the same water, co2 and sunlight, tree ring width = temp. Its precisely the reason tree rings are used as a temp proxy.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Source?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Source?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
You want a source? Oh come on, its WHY tree rings are used as a temp proxy!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
A source that shows it's a direct correlation, as opposed to a more complicated translation.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
A source that shows it's a direct correlation, as opposed to a more complicated translation.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Nope. Its so well know hat I am sure you know this already. It would be like asking for a source to show that ice melts as it gets warmer. Its just obvious.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
If it's so obvious, post a link.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)