IPCC 2001: Greenhouse gas warming 33% UNLIKELY
Just like Bill O'Reilly - when caught in a lie, keep on lying.
"raylopez99" wrote in message
oups.com...
In an earlier post we discussed how Duke University scientists in 2005
announced the sun is responsible for "at least" 30% of global warming
(up from the 25% predicted by the IPCC 2001 report).
In this post I would like to discuss the IPCC 2001 report conclusion
that the rise of greenhouse gases is "likely" responsible for the rise
in the rate of warming.
Specifically, the converse of the IPCC 2001 report stated (footnotes on
pp. 1, 6, 8, 13) that it is 33% *UNLIKELY* that the rise in greenhouse
gases has caused global warming.
How do we come up with this figure? Easy: the IPCC said that "likely"
is defined as the probability falling between 66-90%. As any student of
statistics knows or should know (Roger pay attention this is directed
to you), each and every point between a statistical range such as the
above is EQUALLY PROBABLE to be true. Thus when a study says
temperatures will rise by 1.5C - 5C (for example) when CO2 levels
double means temperatures can just as easily rise 1.5C as they can rise
5C (or anything inbetween). You cannot pick one endpoint as more
probable than the other.
Taken to its logical conclusion, the IPCC 2001 report is saying that it
is 33% _UNLIKELY_ that greenhouse gases cause global warming (with
whatever degree of confidence level they chose, probably 95%
confidence).
That there is a 1 in 3 chance that Ray Lopez, not Roger Coppock, is
right.
Think about that you eco-freaks of nature.
RL
|