>>The upper end of climate model temperature projections is inconsistent with past warming" <<http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/1/...
If you had actually bothered to read the article, maybe – doubtful, but maybe – you would have accurately represented the study.
The study finds that at the very highest sensitivity level the CIMP5 projections are less likely to be consistent. Here is their graph:
http://ej.iop.org/images/1748-9326/8/1/0...
It is hardly a damning blow against CMIP5 and, in fact, provides another piece of evidence that supports AGW.
You need to read the AAAS report again, you have bungled again in reading comprehension.
The IPCC gives no limit on tail possibilities. They do specifically mention that the collapse of the marine-based sectors of the Antarctic ice sheet could cause global mean sea level to rise substantially above the likely range during the 21st century.
You can "stand by" your quote all your want, but you are again wrong. Read the AAAS report again, carefully. Use your finger if you have to. There is no number given by the IPCC that is comparable to what the AAAS is talking about. The IPCC report is giving ranges within the 95% confidence range. The AAAS is specifically talking about -- and are very clear to people who can read -- the possibilities that are no more than 2.5% likely but could in fact happen. If you take a bet that has only a 2% chance of losing you feel good about your chances. But if it puts your house at risk with very little potential winnings you wont take that risk, 2% is slim but it is a real possibility. Less than 2% chance does not mean it will not happen. You can call that alarmist is you like, but if it is so unlikely then you will be happy to bet with me: random select of a number from 1-100. If its 1-98 you win one dollar. If its 99 or 100 you pay me $1 Million. Lets go, are you willing to take the bet or are alarmists? Of course you are not that silly, but that is the risk aversion that the AAAS is talking about.
You have indeed misquoted the IPCC. You should now stop while you are behind.
You seem to always spend more time looking for an argument that actually reading the material you post. If you read with better comprehension you would not be making so many silly comments.
Quote by Noel Brown, UN official: "Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees," threatening political chaos."
They have already clearly stated their position.
"There has been some confusion about those numbers: some media incorrectly reported a range of only 26-82 cm by 2100, instead of the correct 28-98 cm across all scenarios."
Both sets of figures sound like they only take into account thermal expansion and not melting land ice.
Icey will defend catastrophic claims and fear-mongering to the bitter end. He does not seem to care if lying is part of the process of defending these fear-mongering claims.
Wherein lies the problem. He see this as an us versus them. He does not truly care about science, he only cares about his political belief winning. Earlier today he actually attempted to defend an article claiming that AGW would lead to more violent crimes citing what he considered a direct causal effect. The inherent irony that crime in the US has been on the decline, was lost on him.
Baccheus,
You are defending that they are placing out information to the uninformed masses that talk about extremely unlikely scenarios and you think you are in the right. LOL.
And you wonder why I call you an alarmist.
Here is the funny part. You continue to absurdly spew this idiocy of extreme models, and you will continue to lose support as people continue to see that the extreme models are not coming true.
If it just affected you warmists, I could care less about you shooting yourselves in the foot. Unfortunately, when "scientists" purposely attempt to deceive, it has a negative affect on ALL of us.
Edit:
Simply taking a linear trend and adding the PDO cycle effect, gives a model that better predicted the current temps than 95% of their overparameterized models.
I think you were expecting way too much if you expected an informed and reasoned response from Antarcticice. It would have a better chance of having a warm day in Antarctica. Their time table is ticking away. We have already gone through nearly 15% of the century already and it is hasn't warmed, well ... except magically in the ocean.
About 75 feet... We are all gonna die next week!!! Get your life jackets now!!!!
82 CM? another fanatical AGW cultist website is still claiming 6 to 7 feet increase by 2100.
As far as antarcticice, all the AGW cultists drink from the same container of Kool-Aid. They are religious fanatics so they'll believe anything that fits their ideological agenda in that specific moment. This is why they are always changing their answers and moving the goal posts for their projections.
antarcticice gave an answer to my question yesterday where he ended it by stating:
"I guess the real question is will Ottawa address these points and tell us why he misquoted the IPCC or will he do the usual denier thing and run away." http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20140318131219AAurVDG
I will stand by my IPCC quote and show that the interpretation comes from a very alarmist source: "There has been some confusion about those numbers: some media incorrectly reported a range of only 26-82 cm by 2100, instead of the correct 28-98 cm across all scenarios." And in the table: "RCP8.5 (mean)74 (range)52-98
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/sea-level-in-the-5th-ipcc-report/
antarcticice refers us to page 1162 of the AR5 document: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf
This apparently gives him the ammunition to call me out as a denier who "has taken the ranged estimates of the AR5 report and only mentioned the very lowest one": In fact, I mentioned the very highest one.
Can anyone interpret antarcticice's answer in any other manner?
