2012 was warmest year in U.S. history

[GatorRade]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

No. This is pretty emphatic statement coming from a scientific publication.

No, it is a relative statement. It cannot be "emphatic" or "meager" or anything without context. It is relative. I know a couple who says that opposites attract. One of them is in english literature and the other in french literature. That's right, from her view, these are opposites. See what I am saying? It doesn't matter who made the statement; it is meaningless until we get into the models and see what they do.

[neisgator]

Fake Global Warming Believers(FGWB) amuse me.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by GatorRade

No, it is a relative statement. It cannot be "emphatic" or "meager" or anything without context. It is relative. I know a couple who says that opposites attract. One of them is in english literature and the other in french literature. That's right, from her view, these are opposites. See what I am saying? It doesn't matter who made the statement; it is meaningless until we get into the models and see what they do.

It is telling that two people on different sides of this issue debate this kind of peripheral interpretation of a central issue.

Absent a complete understanding by of all the factors in all the models by both of us, we will just have to disagree on our interpretations.

[GatorRade]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

It is telling that two people on different sides of this issue debate this kind of peripheral interpretation of a central issue.

Maybe, I guess.

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Absent a complete understanding by of all the factors in all the models by both of us, we will just have to disagree on our interpretations.

Absolutely. Except, I don't see why we would even disagree, rather than just agree that neither of us really knows how to interpret it.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by GatorRade

Absolutely. Except, I don't see why we would even disagree, rather than just agree that neither of us really knows how to interpret it.

Other than it is a scientific journal where words are usually parsed very carefully. The phrase "significant difference" means very specific things when described in a scientific journal. It means the difference between minor and major.

The reason I am pushing this issue is that there are a number of skeptic scientists that have often asserted than in some, if not many, of the AGW models, forcing due to solar impacts are only a minor input.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Here is a good discussion of the IPCC model compared to one that uses a much different set of assumptions;

The two models, IPCC model and atmospheric system model, use two very different modeling approaches: theory-driven vs data-driven modeling. The IPCC model is based essentially on AGW theory by emission of greenhouse gases, namely CO2, the presented atmospheric system model on the other hand is a CO2-free prediction model. It is described by 5 other variables. The IPCC model shows a prediction accuracy of 7% and the atmospheric system model an accuracy of 75% for the same most recent 21 months of time…

The climate system is a complex system that consists of a number of variables, which are connected interdependently, nonlinearly and dynamically and where it is not clear, which are the causes and which are the effects. The simplistic linear cause-effect relationship “more atmospheric CO2 = higher temperatures” the IPCC model is based on is not an adequate tool to describe the complexity of the atmosphere sufficiently.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Other than it is a scientific journal where words are usually parsed very carefully. The phrase "significant difference" means very specific things when described in a scientific journal. It means the difference between minor and major.

The reason I am pushing this issue is that there are a number of skeptic scientists that have often asserted than in some, if not many, of the AGW models, forcing due to solar impacts are only a minor input.

They said "significant difference?" I thought the phrase was "vary greatly." You are right, "significant difference" means something very specific in stats. But I didn't see them say that in the quote you provided.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

They said "significant difference?" I thought the phrase was "vary greatly." You are right, "significant difference" means something very specific in stats. But I didn't see them say that in the quote you provided.

My bad then. What does "vary greatly" mean to you?

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

My bad then. What does "vary greatly" mean to you?

As Rade said, it is a purely subjective term. The general definition would mean high variance, but there is no definitive definition of high variance. It is really in the eye of the researcher.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Which is why I proffered this;


Here is a good discussion of the IPCC model compared to one that uses a much different set of assumptions;

Quote:
The two models, IPCC model and atmospheric system model, use two very different modeling approaches: theory-driven vs data-driven modeling. The IPCC model is based essentially on AGW theory by emission of greenhouse gases, namely CO2, the presented atmospheric system model on the other hand is a CO2-free prediction model. It is described by 5 other variables. The IPCC model shows a prediction accuracy of 7% and the atmospheric system model an accuracy of 75% for the same most recent 21 months of time…

The climate system is a complex system that consists of a number of variables, which are connected interdependently, nonlinearly and dynamically and where it is not clear, which are the causes and which are the effects. The simplistic linear cause-effect relationship “more atmospheric CO2 = higher temperatures” the IPCC model is based on is not an adequate tool to describe the complexity of the atmosphere sufficiently.

[wygator]

Originally Posted by GatorRade

No, it is a relative statement. It cannot be "emphatic" or "meager" or anything without context. It is relative. I know a couple who says that opposites attract. One of them is in english literature and the other in french literature. That's right, from her view, these are opposites. See what I am saying? It doesn't matter who made the statement; it is meaningless until we get into the models and see what they do.

Wow, Rade! That is some fine nuance!!

[ATLitigator]

Originally Posted by ATLitigator

Sorry, but i did not want to read 18 pages of BS to see if someone pointed out this very important detail...warmest year in U.S..... U.S weather records date back to 1895

so the warmest year in the last 117 years....

the planet is millions of years old....10,000,000 for example

so, scientifically this is not even a relevant or sufficent sample size to have any scientific value

next

i dont know why people are getting into a scientific argument about this report. there is no scientific value in this sample size...mountains out of mole hills

[Lawdog88]

It's abnormally hot in No Name City today.

What that means is, I wore a light shirt.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Second Coldest Start To Spring In US History


[img]ttp://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/screenhunter_157-apr-26-06-02.jpg?w=640&h=428[/img]


http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2...in-us-history/

[jimgata]

Artic ice is the same as 200 years ago.

[jdrgator]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Second Coldest Start To Spring In US History


[img]ttp://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/screenhunter_157-apr-26-06-02.jpg?w=640&h=428[/img]


http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2...in-us-history/

It this another example of you practicing climate science skepticism, MJ?

Who is Steven Goddard, anyway?

[Dreamliner]

Crusty vanguards of an aging religion hanging on.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

Crusty vanguards of an aging religion hanging on.

Did you know somewhere else it was the coldest year in history?

[neisgator]

Here in Quincy IL we havent had spring yet. The past 3 weeks we have had one day of average temps, every other day WAY below average. Prior to that, the winter had been way below normal as well...Highs not even getting to where normal lows are...

[sappanama]

people all over are confused by global warming and record melting snow packs creating flooding in alot of places. this global warming is hard to figure, is it hotter and drier or colder with more rain and snow?