tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1478627399440086977.post7427181161723071558..comments2023-11-21T04:49:01.702-05:00Comments on A Dog Named Kyoto: Trenberth: CGMs cannot predict climateA Dog Named Kyotohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10859158097418832063noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1478627399440086977.post-32616392164274492122011-04-25T11:33:38.470-04:002011-04-25T11:33:38.470-04:00US National Center for Atmospheric Research is on...US National Center for Atmospheric Research is one of the organization that work in a best way, I think that its work is so important to many people!22ddcheap viagrahttp://www.xlpharmacy.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1478627399440086977.post-57679267778708621812007-07-02T13:08:00.000-04:002007-07-02T13:08:00.000-04:00In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. A...<I>In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been.</I><BR/><BR/>If you believe that statement, you might be interested in some waterfront property I have in Nunavut.<BR/><BR/>jr is quite correct, the differnce between prediction and projection seems to be lost on Trenberth.<BR/><BR/>I'm affraid that the help this might provide skeptics will be small as the alarmist side will surely see it as yet another consensus, proving that IPCC is right.John Nicklinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15466423012662670782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1478627399440086977.post-79573938748969039202007-07-01T21:11:00.000-04:002007-07-01T21:11:00.000-04:00Interesting! Trenberth’s frank statements are cer...Interesting! Trenberth’s frank statements are certainly welcome and confirm what many of the much abused “deniers” have been saying all along. <BR/><BR/>But I found some of his remarks, e.g. <I>“In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been”</I> a bit puzzling. Though he seems to be drawing some esoteric distinction between “prediction” and “projection” it isn’t clear, to me, what he means. A projection with a probability attached to it’s occurrence certainly comes across as a prediction. The Fourth AR Summary for Policymakers is chock-a-block with statements using the language of probability including “likelihood”, “virtually certain”, “likely”. There’s a couple of charts at the end that give relative “probabilities” for different future scenarios. The AGW true believers, most disappointingly even our current Tory government, treat the IPCC’s alarmist pronouncements as reliable predictions - else why would they all be saying "the debate is over" and calling for immediate and drastic action?<BR/><BR/>Otherwise, good on Prof. Trenberth!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com