View Single Post
Old 02-21-2012, 03:10 PM   #150 (permalink)
TheEnemy
The road not so traveled
 
TheEnemy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 680

The Truck - '99 Nissan Frontier xe
90 day: 25.74 mpg (US)

The Ugly Duck - '84 Jeep CJ7 Rock crawler
Thanks: 18
Thanked 66 Times in 57 Posts
Sometimes the claims by those supporting human caused global warming really stun me.

A while back on another form a person and I spent some time calculating how much of the warming since the 1970’s we were responsible for. Mind you our calculations have an absolutely huge amount of uncertainty but we felt that our calculations were more accurate than the ones the IPCC gave us.

By our calculations we are responsible for only 60% of the warming since the 1970’s.
A model I saw a couple of years ago put us at 50%, they even did an Error^2 calculation on a reverse regression on past data, which showed their model was 60% accurate. Even looking at their output over actual data showed theirs as being much more accurate than any other model I have ever seen. Unfortunately I have never been able to find their links since then.

Anecdotal evidence: If we were responsible for 97% as the IPCC claims then the 11 year solar cycle should not be able to cause a decrease in temperature (0.1% variance in output), but yet with the last solar minimum temperatures decreased.

State of the Climate | Global Analysis | Annual 2011

Last year tied with 1997 as the 11th warmest, as a La Nina year
2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest as an El Nino year.

As far as wilder weather, so far scientist have NOT been able to correlate an increase due to global warming as there is a huge amount of noise in the data that they still fell into the range of “normal” as far as natural disasters go.

On computer models, I use computer models at work. They are good as far as giving a basic idea as to what should happen. But still we give a wide margin for error when we actually run a test. They are good tools as far as telling you what and where to look, but often in the climate science field what the computer spits out is taken as gospel.

Then as Old Mech stated there are the Doom and Gloom forecasts with little to no supporting evidence.

If you tell me you want me to reduce energy usage to
1. reduce total emissions
2. reduce our dependence on foreign oil
3. save money
Then great I can support those positions

But if I am told I HAVE to because of global warming then my human nature is going to kick in and I will resist changing.

Sorry about the wall of text, hopefully it is not too rantish.
  Reply With Quote