Jump to content

Is Man Made Climate Change Fact or Fiction?


Recommended Posts

Del I could spend 80 hours a week doing it.  But I'd rather watch the trees sway in the wind. 

 

Dude quoting expects is an informed opinion. That is how knowledge is usually acquired, someone who knows more than you tells you something you did not already know or explains something you don't not understand.  I don't reject the information of experts.

 

If you tell me something about Astrology and I use that information relate to formulate an idea to someone else that is an informed opinion. Most of us do not create new information, not really.

 

Del I did not need your help in the lab, because I was able to learned WordPerfect, Lotus, and Access on my own.  In fact, I performed the exact same job as you my 2nd semester. (What ever happened to that petite sista that worked with you?) I began to sell PC shortly thereafter.

 

It is interesting you remember something I mentioned about probability from years ago, that you perceived to be wrong.  I wish I knew what you were talking about--I'd be willing to bet I was not "wrong" :D

 

But it is also interesting I remember your apparent confusion about sampling rates but your unwillingness to accept information from an engineer like myself.  Funny that we both remember things like that.  That must mean something.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Here you go, explain how this example is correct. Not how you are using it like a parable, and you didn't really think about the numbers.Or even better can you compute the probability in each example and tell me the name of the test you use to compare two means.

 

           

On 5/21/2013 at 9:50 PM, Troy said:
Pioneer your points all ASSUME that there is indeed a spiritual world.  One could easily argue the opposite using your very same reasoning.

Del, a horse has a tail but that does not make it a mouse because a mouse has a tail.  That aside what is logical about Astrology?

On my 3rd point, if you flipped a coin 100 times and got heads 75 times it would be false for you to say there is a 75% chance of getting heads on a coin toss -- even if you flipped the coin under some tarot or astrologically defined conditions.

The reason is the likelihood of me flipping a coin 100 times and getting the same result, without consulting tarot card or astrological charts is very possible.  Sure you can flip the coin 1,000 time and get marginally better results but it would still not be enough data.

It would be better If you got 10,000 people to flip the coin 1,000 times under the tarot conditions and different set of 10,000 people to flip a coin under random conditions. If you compared the results between the two sets of people under those conditions and found a significant variance you might have something.  Especially if someone else was able to reproduce your experiment and get the same results. 

You can't do this by yourself.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2017 at 10:23 PM, Troy said:

 

I did not choose to discuss "the data," because I completely disagree with the premise. What is the point of discussing the two plots you've posted? As I said, I do not think what you've presented is sufficient to understand man's impact on climate, what is the point on delving deeper into what I view as a flawed assumption?

Looking at it another way;

Lets take it for granted that I agree 100% with the conclusions you've drawn from the data you've obtained. That will not change my position on climate change. Do you understand why?

Even if I completely disagreed with your interpretation of the data, that will not prove that I'm right about climate change; besides you'll simply say I'm too stupid to understand the data.

In either scenario, my position does not change.

Wow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was the problem with the statement besides the somewhat awkward wording? Was it the mouse/horse tail analogy or  the 75% chance of getting heads

 

As far as the second statement, I have nothing to add, for it is clear.  I'm not sure what "Wow" means. The reason for your denial of climate change deserves the "Wow."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am asking you a very simple statistical question. What's the probability of getting 75 heads out of 100 tails. 

 

A better question is what is the mumber of heads (bound) for a balanced coin. 

Troy the probability of a head is .5 over an infinite number of trials.  However if you toss a coin  100 1000 10000. You may get more or less than 50% heads. So in all those examples. What's the probability of tossing heads 75% of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, you brought up something from 4 years ago that you said I was wrong about.  I did not recall the incident.  You found the what I wrote and shared it.  I read it did not see anything incorrect.  I asked you again to tell me what is wrong and you wanna play 20 questions.

 

Since you pulled the quote out of context I don't know what point I was trying to make.  I can only divine from you around about way of answering my questions that you are suggesting that the implication behind this statement is false;

 

"...if you flipped a coin 100 times and got heads 75 times it would be false for you to say there is a 75% chance of getting heads on a coin toss."

 

I can only presume the point I was making is that if observe something you can not draw conclusions about the general case.  You or Pioneer were probably referencing some personal anecdote and extending it to the general population, which is flawed logic but a natural thing for people to do.

 

Again, what did I write that was wrong? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Troy what's the probability of flipping a coin 100 times and getting 75 heads. 

Or how did you decide 100 tosses and 75 heads. And 10000 tosses. You just made up those numbers. If you knew about the central limit theorem. Which is a key statiscal concept. You would know that you don't need 10,000 trials .

I have given you a hint and you probably still can't see what is wrong with your statement. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude I know that math.  I don't have to prove it to you, because I know what I wrote is correct.  

 

YOU dredged some comment I made 4 years ago to demonstrate that I don't understand the probability of a coin toss.  You've failed to show what wrote was wrong and now you are probing the technical minutiae and grasping for straws  It is a desperation move and entirely unnecessary.

 

I made an analogy and it valid as it stands.

 

Sure I made up the numbers I could have as just as easily said just because you flip a coin once and it lands on heads does not mean that it will always land on heads.  But the would be obvious.  Sometime we observe a high frequency of some event and assume that is the way it always is.  I chose 75 because it may be less obvious to some.

 

Here is my take on what you are doing @Delano:

 

Lets say you are from Ecuador where the average temperature does not change very much over the course of the year.  You go to Chicago for the first time and spend Dec, Jan and Feb there.  You diligently take the temperature every day and conclude that is the weather is the same all year round confident because you sampled a full 25% of the year's weather.  The reasons why this is wrong are obvious to everyone except to you,  

 

You have no concept of how the northern hemispheres get more daylight during the summer months.  All you have is your dataset and a prodigious knowledge of statistics.  You draw comfort and even a perverse satisfaction in knowing something noone else can comprehend. Not only is everyone less critical, and unable to think for themselves, they are arrogant in this position--not even showing the slightest interest discussing your data.

 

When they try to explain why the temperatures vary much more over the course of a year in Chicago than they do in Ecuador, you ask them to prove it why this happens, they say they can't they believe the scientists. You say to yourself, "What naive fools these mortal are..."

 

What is your underlying motivation? Are you trying to prove you are smarter, therefore better qualified to draw a better conclusion regarding climate change?

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I knew you made up the numbers because they don't make sense.

 

Like i said earlier not only can i analyse numbers i can tell when they don't make sense. 

 

That minutiae that your referring to is called statistics.

 

You can't prove  your numbers because they are an inaccurate use of statistics. I told you that then, I am telling you now.

 

Maybe take a refresher course in statistics. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Del I believe you are being deliberately dense. That is why the numbers I selected and my explanation of them make no sense to you.  My analogy would be obvious to anyone because the math required to understand it trivial.

 

Continue trying to cloak and obfuscate your nonexistent arguments under the guise of superior knowledge of numbers.  I'm sure you've helped enlighten many others to become climate change deniersers using that tactic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are funny, how am I being dense when I knew that you made up the numbers. You are avoiding doing the calculation because you don't know how, In addition to me giving you a hint you still can't show and prove what you know. You are right you don't have to show me. I stuy numbers Troy and neither you nor Scientist can lie with statistics to me.

 

One other thing statistics is different than math. You could have use the Central limit theorem. And approximated the answer. You could have reread my explanation from three years ago. You could have tried to figure it out. You even could have take the Zscore and and subtracted the appropriate propabilites. You could have used the Binomial formula.

 

. In statistics you can test a sample a small as 40. It just means that that the normal curve is steeper. Z = x - Mu/(std dev)

 

http://www.dummies.com/education/math/statistics/how-to-find-the-mean-variance-and-standard-deviation-of-a-binomial-distribution/

Once gain I am not trying to convince anyone to be for or against. I am suggesting that people including you think about the issue. And if it is to complicated than make an informed decision by looking at both sides of the issue. I have said this numerous times but I will say it again. Just because I don' believe in man made Climate Change doesn't mean we shouldn't try to clean the environment. I think before fixing a problem it helps to understand the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are being dense because the point was was making was completely lost onyou.  and the fact that I made up and example was perfectly fine.

 

So now you are are calling me a liar.  Does that too make you feel good about yourself?  It does not phase me.  I've been called worse by better ;)  Did you forget I have the entire freaking Internet at my disposal?

 

Your reasoning escapes me but puts you in great company Del, including the likes of "45." Carry on Bruh...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Troy use as much hyperbole as you like but if you use statistics you have a responsibility to not make it up. And pass it off as science. No Troy We are disagreeing because climate change is to important for you to be wrong about.

 

I am glad that you admitted you made up the numbers. However I didn't call you a liar. Please point out where I said you were lying. I am just saying your ignorant about statistics.

 

Yes my reasoning escapes you but I believe I have summed up yours. Climate change is to important to be wrong about. The only difference between me and people that beleive in climate change is the following I use a tenth of the energy they use. For about 20 years i rode a bike to work. Didn;t have a TV for 20 years. Never owned a car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

?!! Del you are incorrigible.

 

I wrote, "Dude I know that math.  I don't have to prove it to you, because I know what I wrote is correct."

 

You wrote in reaction, "You are avoiding doing the calculation because you don't know how..."

 

This is the definition of calling me a liar.  This is not hyperbole. It is a simple statement of fact. I might even be offended it I thought you were truly malicious with ill intent.  You are trying really hard not to understand my simple analogy and are introducing unnecessary complexity, for reasons that escape me..

 

Del the odds of flipping a coin 100 times and getting 75 heads is possible, but the probability is not 75%,  This is intuitively obvious to a high school student, so understanding how to calculate the probability was both unnecessary and irrelevant to understanding the point I was making. I can't believe you held onto that little tidbit for so many years.

 

At the end of the day I believe man-made climate change is something we need to do something about today.  All you efforts to disparage my reasoning ability, intellect, and honesty are not going to change this. Again we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you have the most noble of actions. A 1,5 degree rise in temperature is serious. The data shows population is a stronger link. Which means there needs to be a reduction in population. You would exxagerate using numbers if that would encourage conservation. I think we should use less resources ces. My opionion is different but my actions are similar. I would not question your integrity. But i always interrogate numbers. Brother 

Will the temperature rise 1,5 every year. I doubt it. I hope that i am right but lets act like i am wrong. And stop by so much stuff we don't need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Del, I agree 100% on the lets stop doing the stuff we don't need--I don't even care how we arrive at the conclusion it that is the outcome.

I do know almost every major city I visited recently, Tampa, Sacremanto, Altanta, DMV, New York, Charlotte is buried in traffic.  In places like Tampa, everyone drives humongous vehicles all by themselves.  If we changed our collective behavior I think the population would not be much of a factor.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When i lived in Manhattan rush hour happened three times a day. And each time period was longer. Next to taking the train riding a bike  was the quickest way to get around at least for short distances. It was only in the  90's the Transportation Alternatives' advocacy work statred making inroads. By sponsoring bike ti work week and getting bike laned and bike paths.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A doctoral dissertion that's 13 years old. Fair enough just check and see if the  temperature rising 1.5 degrees. Australia just had some of its coldest weather since the 1950's.

This debate will be like when you thought Cosby was innocent. I  am not smarter than climatologist but I am more savvy about numbers than most.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't go by the change in temperature in a isolated to evaluate on the global impact.  Actually "climate change" is probably a better description that "Global warming" because deniers point to a cold winter or big snow storm as "proof" that made made climate change is not a pending disaster, but merely nature at work. This concept has been communicated to the general public by climatologist.

 

@Delano, rather than looking for articles to confirm you world view (which are easy to find in the age of the internet), try looking for articles from reputable sources that run counter to your beliefs.

 

Did I say Cosby was innocent?  I don't recall ever believing that he never did anything wrong. I definitely expressed doubt given the sheer volume and the extremely delay of the accusations.  Again he is a rich Black man in America and a target as a result.  I definitely had doubts, still do, that he "raped" all of the women that the media likes to promote has.  Did he surreptitiously drug and grope some women, yes that seemly very likely.  but a jury has trouble convicting... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isolated incident. Troy it's snow in the largest hot desert on the world. Say that last sentence out loud and listen to yourself. Well time will tell.

If CO2 is  causing warmer weather, what man made effect  is causing the cold weather. Can you find any explanation. Just one by a PhD. I dont even care of they are a climatologist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again Del, these are not my scientific discoveries or revelations but the information that has been disseminated by the vast majority of scientists to study the subject and inform the public.

 

Again, increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is causing Earth's average temperature to rise faster than it would naturally. This can manifest in aberrant weather all over the planet which could result in colder weather in some locations. Your unwillingness to accept this fact again betrays you inherent bias on this subject.  I wonder why continue to engage in a conversation on a subject where your opinion is so frigid?

 

I previously shared a very detailed article, and easy to understand, from National Geographic on the subject.  Obviously you did not read it, given your request. You can look it up on your own. 

 

I see you going to have to learn this on your own, me telling you is not helping you understand.  Again seek out an alternate perspectives, which in the case it will be easy because it is the mainstream, commonly accepted science, based upon the best available information, not the rants of the fringe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Del of course I have my own thought on this, indeed this is how my opinions on the matter were formed.  The distinction that you are failing to understand on my position is that I don't presume to know more than the scientist who study this stuff.

 

Now of course you can find some folks that dispute this the majority, but my thoughts on the matter tell me that what they have to say is either biased, uninformed, or malicious.  

 

When Al Gore first presented this information to the public I was skeptical, today I'm MUCH less skeptical, because the global scientific community has weighed in supporting man made climate change. Do you see the distinction?  

 

Fundamentally you've rejected the findings of the scientific community, and I've chosen to accept them. So when you present anecdotal information about unusual weather that means nothing, because the climatologist have already explained this in the context of global climate change.  Now if you are unaware of this fact I'd understand why these weather abnormalities would look like evidence again global warming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let my  say this very clearly. The numbers don't support thesis. There isn't one model that tracks weather correctly. So we can't really discuss this issue. You're faith in propaganda is moving. It's my black gene that makes me question motivations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You and i are different. You are satisfied with expert opinion. I spent more time trying to understand temperature,  weather,  climate and statistics. It is very difficult to find people with any willingness to out in the effort to understand this issue. Its about being informed in order to ask intelligent questions. If there's a referendum yiy can make an intelligent choice. You are projecting your own rigidness.

You have forgotten my response to National Geographic. You hadn't read the link thst had the pros and cons. Or perhaps you didn't comprehend the implications of the responses. You have belief, I have questions which neither you nor climatologists can answer. 

 

They changed the name from global warming, because the actual weather didn't match. How come they couldn't see that, because they are bending the numbers.

 

Al Gore had a staff of four people and the were using more than $100,000 a year in electricity. He was flying all around promoting his program which probably isnt free. I have easily spent scores of hours trying ti understand this issue. Its silly to debate it with those who don't msje any effort to educate themselves. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Delano you are the one who keeps resurrecting this conversation.

 

I've already demonstrated my flexibility; I was originally very skeptical and now I'm no longer. You are the only one who's demonstrated prodigious rigidity in this regard.

 

And true Gore's carbon footprint did not help his cause.

 

You know your statement: "It is very difficult to find people with any willingness to out in the effort to understand this issue." Is actually incredulous because it ignores the entire scientific community!

 

Now if you're looking for lay people like myself then I would understand why you might have difficulty finding people because most of us simply don't have the hubris to reject the findings of the scientific community the way you have.

 

I'm sorry your scores of hours studying this issue is simply not enough to impress me to change my current position on this issue. 

 

Still it will continue to baffle me why you believe so strongly that you know more than the planets scientific community.

 

Now as a black person I definitely understand the skepticism. But I see no reason for the majority of the scientific community to lie about this issue. If anything it makes more sense to lie and take the position you have the way our current president has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

@Del, I was thinking about you the other day after listening to a video of someone explaining why people reject science and facts in favor of their own opinions when it comes to things like climate change, evolution, and religion. Unfortunately I can't find the video and it is not in my history.

 

But here is a video you my find interesting, or not.  Let me know.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Troy I didn't have an opinion before i lookes at the numbers and analysed them. I like to think for myself. Since most people have an agenda. You are satisfied to let those more knowledgeable than you to give you your opinion on climate change. Bill Nye also did a show in astrology you may enjoy it. 

I would listen but he's a popular scientist. Statistical arguments and models that van be analysed. I would have thought that would have appealed to the engineer in you. Perhaps that's to far on the past to be relevant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

OK @Del, I'm sure you've heard about the massive storm here in the United States that pummeled Houston with the greatest rainfall they have seen in recorded history.  

 

Do you believe the scientists who tell us that this very bad storm was made worse because of manmade climate change?  You don't have to elaborate, unless you want to, a "yes" or "no" response will suffice.  Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quantifying the difference is very hard if not impossible because their are many factors including the way the City of Houston was designed.  But that does not mean there is no impact from man made climate change.  

 

Are you going to answer my question?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Troy quantifying the difference is impossible. I'll ask you again since you have conveniently forgotten my response. Do you have new data. My position is a result of analysis. So if you have some new data or even any statistical data i will post findings. Or you can wring hands a tstatiscal anomalies.

If you want to argue opinions you can continue to do so. You have enough science background to make sense of the numbers. You need not be a meterologist. I simple understanding  of weather and a perusal of the numbers is all I have ever asked of anyone. Yet neither deniers nor affirmers has been willing ti do so since 2011. I  don't reckon that will change. Because it is no longer fashionable to think for oneself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, so you won't answer the question regarding the recent statements of the scientific community.  This is deep.  Just and hour ago you accused NubianFellow avoiding a question due to ignorance, but here you are doing the same thing yourself. 

 

Given your statement it is indeed curious why you won't simply say "No."  Instead you go back to the strawman of an argument and accuse everyone of not thinking for themselves.  

 

If you want "new" or additional more data you can look at rainfall in Houston over time.  But something tells me it won't mean anything to you.

 

Kationa, Sandy, Harvey, statistically anomalies?!  Del these are not anomalies these are and emerging and predicted trend in more severe weather.  

 

The really sad part is that many people on the political right here in America share your viewpoint and are not doing anything to prepare for the increasing number of severe weather events. As a result people are loosing everything and dying as a result.  

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Troy really man. I have no allegiance to either side. My position was and is, look at the statistics have a rudimentary understanding of weather and come to a conclusion. I have looked at data from 1700 to 1980.  And have yet to come across any credible statistics. I have since 2011 asked anyone to find a model that shows the relationship. No one can because it doesn't exist. What you will find are models that make predictions but none that show the relationship. Do a little t  Just a little. You can't find a statistical model showing the linkage. Troy I am a thinker and I am really good with statistics. Have been since 1982. Bring your A game and put on your thinking cap. Or repeat what you have heard.

I reckon within 8 years you will see that I am correct. 

Troy reread my post to Nubian Fellow.  I said are you intentionally avoiding the question or do you not know who owns the site. 

Troy one storm no matter how big is not new statistical information. Even though there are statistics related to this storm. Are yiu being intentionally dense or do you not know the difference between the statistics of one event a sample and the population. Troy show me one model that makes the case for climate change.  You can even post a few even if you can't interpret them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Troy said:

Wow, so you won't answer the question regarding the recent statements of the scientific community.  This is deep.  Just and hour ago you accused NubianFellow avoiding a question due to ignorance, but here you are doing the same thing yourself. 

 

Given your statement it is indeed curious why you won't simply say "No."  Instead you go back to the strawman of an argument and accuse everyone of not thinking for themselves.  

 

If you want "new" or additional more data you can look at rainfall in Houston over time.  But something tells me it won't mean anything to you.

 

Kationa, Sandy, Harvey, statistically anomalies?!  Del these are not anomalies these are and emerging and predicted trend in more severe weather.  

 

The really sad part is that many people on the political right here in America share your viewpoint and are not doing anything to prepare for the increasing number of severe weather events. As a result people are loosing everything and dying as a result.  

 

 

 

You are again attributing opinions to me that are totally against my position.  Do not state my  opinion. That is a propagandist technique. I will state my position explicitly since you have conveniently forgotten it.

 

I didnt have an opinion about global warming. So i decided to look at the data for 250 + years and do a statistical analyis. The numbers show a stronger link to population than productuon. The emissions numbers also don't track well with changes in production. There is no large change in emission numbers after the invention of the combustion engine.

 

 

Also up until recently there weren't any statiscal models. If you look at the data it starts trending upwards dramatically in the 1980's. So 250 years of prodction, no large jumps. I have also looked at the prediction models. I posted that here. There isn't one model that tracks climate. You for whatever reason didn't look at that. I also sent you a link that had ten reasons from both sides of the argument. You also refused to read it. And finally i have said even though I dont believe anthropomorhic climate change, it is still a good idea to clean up the environment. So stop linking me to either side. I have analysed the data. And my concerns have never been answered nor addressed since doing the study in 2011. And you patently refuse to consider anything other than its caused by man. So who is being irrational. The steady state scientists got it wrong. Look them up. They were astrophysicist . A lot of people like to reference science and statistics  without really understanding either. If you post numbers be on your A game.  

 

However every couple of months you bring some irrelevant argument to the discussion. Post a model that proves your point. What a second you can't do that because climate change is a fiction. You would have to post about 20 models. And only a handful are good at predicting one component of weather. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Del sit is plain to see you will not answer my direct and simple question.  Instead you cloud the issue will irrelevant points that we've already gone over.

 

All I asked was, Do you believe the scientists who tell us that this very bad storm was made worse because of manmade climate change? 

 

Again, if you don't want to answer one question, which at this point you made abundantly clear that you don't, that is fine, but you can save the other stuff, as you said before.  You've also demonstrated a prodigious propensity for shooting down anything I might have to say on the subject. So again if you won't answer my question you can rest your finger muscles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Troy  Why not ask me if I think Santa Claus had an impact on the storm. Yeah my fingers and your mind are resting.

Man made Climate Change is a fiction. You can not find one predictive model to prove the link. Because your scientist need twenty models and 15 of them don't work. That is also in the info that I have posted which you refused to read. Stubborness is not the cure for ignorance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Del asking you if Santa Claus had an impact is a patently silly question.  But your outrageous and nonsensical analogy with Stana makes your answer clear.  I was attempting to gauge how fixed your opinion was on climate change was.  I thought the massive storm Harvey might have an impact, but you are far more rigid and fixed than I expected.  This issue is a religious one with you.  

 

Again, I see the beliefs of the scientific community, new information, another unprecedented weather calamity will not change your position one iota. This is tantamount to trying to tell a Christian that Jesus was not raised from the dead or even telling you that Astrology is bunk.

 

Now I understand, thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No you don't. Post One Predictive Model. That supports your claim. And I will concede the point. Can you post a statiscal instead of opinionated argument. I keep saying this. I looked at statistical data show me a model that proves your case. You are an IT person it shouldn't be that hard. Should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So here's a link for IPCC.

And here is what they say about their own models page 826

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

 

Inevitably, some models perform better than others for certain climate variables, but no individual model clearly emerges as ‘the best’ overall.

 

On the other hand, many studies have failed to find strong relationships between observables and projections. Whetton et al. (2007) and Knutti et al. (2010a) found that correlations between local to regional climatological values and projected changes are small except for a few regions. Scherrer (2011) finds no robust relationship between the ability of the CMIP3 models to represent interannual variability of near-surface air temperature and the amplitude of future warming.Raisanen et al. (2010) report only small (10–20%) reductions in cross-validation error of simulated 21st century temperature changes when weighting the CMIP3 models based on their simulation of the present-day climatology.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...