Changing climate Deniers into Believers, page-15

  1. 707 Posts.
    lightbulb Created with Sketch. 11
    "Using only Hansen’s own data, the above demonstrates that Hansen was
    not “extremely accurate” in his 1988 predictions because a simple, commonly unreliable, linear extrapolation performed better
    than his model in predicting the last 30 years of temperatures."

    What is a simply, commonly, unreliable, linear extrapolation performed better mean--- means using layman's language?​

    "One of the consequences of demonstrating the ‘Business As Usual’ linear extrapolation of past temperatures as being superior to the model used by Hansen, is that it isn’t necessary to appeal to anthropogenic influences to account for a phenomenon that started 12 millennia ago, with the end of the last major glaciation.

    What is a Business as usual Linear extrapolation in layman's language?​

    Occam’s Razor suggests that the best explanation for something is the simplest explanation. That is, there is no compelling need to complicate the explanation with human interference. Climate changes. That is what it does."

    What does --There is no compelling need to complicate the explanation with human interference mean in layman's language?​

    This dog's breakfast of a graph is s from the link you provided--courtesy of WUWT​


    aaa.png


    And here is the explanation of the graph.​

    Hansen claimed “The warming is almost 0.4 degrees Centigrade [sic] by 1987 relative to … the 30 year mean, 1950 to 1980 … The probability of a chance warming of that magnitude is about 1 percent.” The first graph, above, with the red line, shows that 0.3 °C would be a more accurate estimate. One should be suspicious of such a claim when his own data demonstrated that the temperature had already exceeded that for one season in 1981! Are we to believe that at least two events with a 1% probability occur within 7 years of each other? He then claimed that the recent temperatures were about three times the standard deviation (0.13) of the baseline annual temperature average. Actually, the standard deviation of the annual averages for the 1958 to 1988 period is more like 0.15. Thus, the 1988 quarterly temperatures were about two ‘standard deviations’ above the previous 30 years of temperatures, not three! He was playing loose with the facts!
    Please explain?
    Last edited by RedCedar: 07/12/18
 
GET SUPPORT arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.