The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Miscellaneous / Climate Change


Subject:  Re: It's just weather ... Date:  1/31/2013  6:42 PM
Author:  Windchasers Number:  40587 of 91355

Pretty much what WuLong said. Compare the baselines to what's happening and what we'd expect without AGW, accounting for statistical significance.

Thats the problem, there is none of that available for tornados in IN in Jan. Pucksfool and others just find some weather they consider unusual and then run with it. People on this board generally eat it up.

Yeah, it's wrong when either side does it. I mostly just stay out of those discussions, but don't take silence for implied acceptance.

None of this is clear in the IPCC report, but I like your attempt. Are you saying that the model mean is the projection we should be comparing against?

Well, the IPCC summary just gives the expected decadal trend, as well as the long-term projections based on various emissions scenarios. There's more explanation of the statistics and caveats in the references, but I 'xpect this is a decent first-order approximation.

If you can find a ensemble prediction that fits pretty well with the emissions/solar scenarios we get for the next 30 years, then yeah, I'd say use the mean of that for comparison.

If that's falsified, it should tell you that our models are wrong in some important way. Maybe the resolution was too bad, maybe a forcing was ignored, maybe the Yellowstone Supercaldera blew up and spewed a billion tons of ash into the atmosphere, etc. Model falsification doesn't necessarily mean that the AGW hypothesis is "dead", since that'll depend on how and why the models broke.. but it'd probably mean some pretty big changes to our understanding of climate science, AGW included.
Copyright 1996-2020 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us