Global Warming. Fact or grossly exaggerated??

[basketcase]

^^^^ you miss the point again as usual, rockie. The fact scientific institutions are at least beginning to open up debate on the whole GW issue is a major step forward. Thats because up until now they've always said the global warming science was settled.

You dont hire 3 very vocal anti-GW scientists if you think the science is settled

Scientific institutions have always been open to debate - based on evidence, not politics.

These three guys represent the political advocacy that MF claims to despise.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Scientific institutions have always been open to debate - based on evidence, not politics.

That's certainly how it should be.

That's why the IPCC should be scrapped. If there is a need for an organization to gather research at an international level, it should be one that focuses on science and does not have an agenda that is driven by politicians, environmental activists, etc.

 

[basketcase]

That's certainly how it should be.

That's why the IPCC should be scrapped. If there is a need for an organization to gather research at an international level, it should be one that focuses on science and does not have an agenda that is driven by politicians, environmental activists, etc.

What you keep refusing to accept is that the agenda of the IPCC is driven by the results of the science.

The whole 'global' thing and the significant impact that the science shows requires the discussion to be in the forefront and not in some obscure journal. Your argument is sort of like saying Einstein and others should have had their science ignored because they advocated against the use nuclear weapons.

 

[groggy]

That's certainly how it should be.

That's why the IPCC should be scrapped. If there is a need for an organization to gather research at an international level, it should be one that focuses on science and does not have an agenda that is driven by politicians, environmental activists, etc.

Not only can you be fooled by high school level graph manipulation, you really don't understand how the IPCC works. They do just assess the body if work and gather all the research to assess it. What political agenda can change the fact that 97% of the work all has similar findings. There is no political agenda that could force 10,000 scientists in 100 + countries to come up with the same type of results for two or three decades.

But you are so easily fooled and so want to believe your creationists that you will never let yourself understand that, will you?

 

[Moviefan-2]

What political agenda can change the fact that 97% of the work all has similar findings.

You might want to spend more time on skepticalscience.com. You're not even quoting your own propaganda correctly.

What you keep refusing to accept is that the agenda of the IPCC is driven by the results of the science.

The whole 'global' thing and the significant impact that the science shows requires the discussion to be in the forefront and not in some obscure journal. Your argument is sort of like saying Einstein and others should have had their science ignored because they advocated against the use nuclear weapons.

The scientific method seeks to minimize bias, not revel in it.

 

[basketcase]

...

The scientific method seeks to minimize bias, not revel in it.

The science is the science. Advertising the result is not bias.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Advertising the result is not bias.

Yeah, the IPCC really went out of its way to advertise the fact that its predictions had been spectacularly wrong.

Groggy didn't even know the IPCC had admitted to the pause until I found a reference for him. Can't say I blame Groggy, though, since the IPCC's minimizing of that fact wouldn't exactly meet the textbook definition of "advertising."

 

[basketcase]

Yeah, the IPCC really went out of its way to advertise the fact that its predictions had been spectacularly wrong....

You keep claiming this 'spectacularly' garbage. Talk about not caring for evidence. Current observations are at the low end of predictions.

As for not advertising, it's hardly been a secret; science doesn't keep secrets. The data for the current observations are widely available and if any scientist had a theory disproving the impact of CO2 that would be widely available too.

Until that imaginary work disproving global warming based on CO2 comes out, the scientific community will continue to support anthropogenic CO2 as the major player no matter how much you don't like it.

 

[groggy]

You might want to spend more time on skepticalscience.com. You're not even quoting your own propaganda correctly.

Typing on my phone earlier. 97% of climatologist and papers on climatology support the IPCC findings on anthropomorphic climate change, as confirmed by the AAAS.
But you can't answer that question, can you?
How can a 'political agenda' work on 97% of the 10,000 or so climatologists across 100 + countries?
Your claim is very, ridiculous.
But what else would you expect from someone so easily fooled with basic manipulation of a graph?

The scientific method seeks to minimize bias, not revel in it.

You really don't have any idea what you are talking about, do you?
Did you just copy that one from wattsup?

You are such an easy mark.

 

[AK-47]

Oh groggy, you are so gonna be completely annihilated in a few minutes. I had a feeling you were full of shit, but I didnt know how much full of shit you were!! Get ready!

I'll post it later tonight or maybe tomorrow. Get ready for it

 

[Moviefan-2]

Until that imaginary work disproving global warming based on CO2 comes out, the scientific community will continue to support anthropogenic CO2 as the major player no matter how much you don't like it.

In fact, if the evidence doesn't support the premise, the scientific method says that it should either be replaced or discarded. The fact that the climate is too complex to be predicted (at this point in time) by computer models doesn't mean we should stick with the CO2 premise if it isn't supported by evidence.

And it currently isn't.

The "low end" statement is completely misleading. As your own graph from the Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media showed, the overwhelming majority of model projections completely failed to predict the pause. The University of Hamburg found that 98 per cent of the models failed to predict the pause (http://www.spiegel.de/international...lems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html).

The IPCC's predictions (in various reports) of temperature increases of 0.2 degrees Celsius to 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade were off by at least 75 per cent (that's the size of the error for the "low end" predictions of 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade). As the IPCC admitted in its most recent report, the increase for the most recent 15 years recorded by the IPCC was only 0.05 degrees Celsius, or not statistically significant at all.

The predictions were spectacularly wrong.

To get an idea of the enormous difference between the predictions and the results, take a look at this figure (SPM-10b) from the Summary for Policy Makers in the IPCC's 2001 report (a larger version can be found on Page 34 of the actual report: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/vol4/english/pdf/spm.pdf). Every scenario has the Earth's temperature skyrocketing upwards from 2001 to now:

http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate/effects-impacts-may04/html/figures/figure-2-1.html

The figure, as you might have guessed, is based on Michael Mann's hockey stick graph.

Unfortunately for Mann and the IPCC, the predicted skyrocketing increases didn't happen.

 

[groggy]

In fact, if the evidence doesn't support the premise, the scientific method says that it should either be replaced or discarded. The fact that the climate is too complex to be predicted (at this point in time) by computer models doesn't mean we should stick with the CO2 premise if it isn't supported by evidence.

Too complex for you, certainly.
A person who can be fooled by simple manipulation of graph that most high school students could spot is obviously very, very easy to fool and obviously not smart enough to understand even the basics.

Did you find the difference yet, or are you just pretending that you didn't fail miserably at such an easy task?

The "low end" statement is completely misleading. As your own graph from the Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media showed, the overwhelming majority of model projections completely failed to predict the pause. The University of Hamburg found that 98 per cent of the models failed to predict the pause (http://www.spiegel.de/international...lems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html).

You do realize that even in this article Storch predicts a 2 degree Celsius increase in global surface temperatures by the end of the century, which is still in the near middle of the IPCC predictions?

The IPCC's predictions (in various reports) of temperature increases of 0.2 degrees Celsius to 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade were off by at least 75 per cent (that's the size of the error for the "low end" predictions of 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade). As the IPCC admitted in its most recent report, the increase for the most recent 15 years recorded by the IPCC was only 0.05 degrees Celsius, or not statistically significant at all.

You're back to your false claim again?
You're forgetting to note that your claim is based on cherry picking, using the warmest year on record as your low point and that the claim is even more suspect in the knowledge that 2013 was the fourth warmest year on record and the last decade the warmest on record.

To get an idea of the enormous difference between the predictions and the results, take a look at this figure (SPM-10b) from the Summary for Policy Makers in the IPCC's 2001 report (a larger version can be found on Page 34 of the actual report: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/vol4/english/pdf/spm.pdf). Every scenario has the Earth's temperature skyrocketing upwards from 2001 to now:

The results are still within predictions, here's a great chart that shows the accuracy of the AR4 predictions with reality.

You are wrong and foolish.

 

[basketcase]

In fact, if the evidence doesn't support the premise, the scientific method says that it should either be replaced or discarded. ....

So find a better theory. I'll wait.


There's a reason that the vast majority of the scientific community supports the idea of anthropogenic global warming and it isn't your conspiracy theory.



p.s. your argument is exactly the same as those who deny evolution because there are still unknowns.

 

[Moviefan-2]

There's a reason that the vast majority of the scientific community supports the idea of anthropogenic global warming

Utter nonsense.

Apart from all the reasons that have already been provided, you overlook another key point about your false "consensus" -- the studies you point to don't actually reflect the current evidence. For example, the propaganda piece put together by the cartoonist, John Cook, looked at papers written from 1991 to 2011 -- before the Met Office, the IPCC, etc., had confirmed the pause.

In other words, even if your bogus "consensus" were legit, it would still be based on papers that were written before the new evidence emerged confirming that the computer model predictions have been spectacularly wrong. It wouldn't apply to the evidence that exists today.

Given your determination to stick with the flawed computer-model predictions and reject the empirical evidence, I think we know who the "denier" is.

You're forgetting to note that your claim is based on cherry picking.

I'm afraid not.

Take another look at the Mann-made table in the IPCC's 2001 report. It shows temperatures skyrocketing in a straight upward fashion (in all of its predictions), regardless of what post-1990 year you pick as your starting point.

http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate/effects-impacts-may04/html/figures/figure-2-1.html

 

[blackrock13]

Utter nonsense.

Apart from all the reasons that have already been provided, you overlook another key point about your false "consensus" -- the studies you point to don't actually reflect the current evidence. For example, the one done by the cartoonist, John Cook, looked at papers written from 1991 to 2011 -- before the Met Office, the IPCC, etc., had confirmed the pause.

In other words, even if your bogus "consensus" were legit, it would still be based on papers that were written before the new evidence emerged confirming that the computer model predictions have been spectacularly wrong. In other words, it wouldn't apply to the evidence that exists today.

Given your repeated refusal to stick with the flawed computer-model predictions and reject the empirical evidence, I think we know who the "denier" is.



I'm afraid not.

Take another look at the Mann-made table in the IPCC's 2001 report. It shows temperatures skyrocketing in a straight upward fashion (in all of its predictions), regardless of what post-1990 year you pick as your starting point.

http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate/effects-impacts-may04/html/figures/figure-2-1.html

So according to that graph, what was the temperature rise in the last 16 years?

 

[groggy]

In other words, even if your bogus "consensus" were legit, it would still be based on papers that were written before the new evidence emerged confirming that the computer model predictions have been spectacularly wrong. In other words, it wouldn't apply to the evidence that exists today.

Bullshit.
First, the data and predictions were never wrong.
Second, recent statements post date your criticisms, see the AAAS
Third, you refuse to acknowledge that the recent info states that 2013 was the fourth warmest year on record and the last decade the warmest decade.
Fourth, you cannot find a legit scientific association that doubts the IPCC statements
Fifth, you cannot find an alternative theory from anyone
Sixth, you can't spot high school level trickery.
Seventh, you still seem to think that creationists are 'legit' scientists

Take another look at the Mann-made table in the IPCC's 2001 report. It shows temperatures skyrocketing in a straight upward fashion (in all of its predictions), regardless of what post-1990 year you pick as your starting point.

http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate/effects-impacts-may04/html/figures/figure-2-1.html

And you will find the climate following those predictions.
I can show you predictions from 1980 that are accurate to today.
And I already showed you a graph showing that the AR4 predictions are still accurate.

You have failed on every argument.

 

[blackrock13]

Utter nonsense.

Apart from all the reasons that have already been provided, you overlook another key point about your false "consensus" -- the studies you point to don't actually reflect the current evidence. For example, the propaganda piece put together by the cartoonist, John Cook, looked at papers written from 1991 to 2011 -- before the Met Office, the IPCC, etc., had confirmed the pause.

In other words, even if your bogus "consensus" were legit, it would still be based on papers that were written before the new evidence emerged confirming that the computer model predictions have been spectacularly wrong. It wouldn't apply to the evidence that exists today.

Given your determination to stick with the flawed computer-model predictions and reject the empirical evidence, I think we know who the "denier" is.



I'm afraid not.

Take another look at the Mann-made table in the IPCC's 2001 report. It shows temperatures skyrocketing in a straight upward fashion (in all of its predictions), regardless of what post-1990 year you pick as your starting point.

http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate/effects-impacts-may04/html/figures/figure-2-1.html

Actually your inability to understand a reasonably simple chart is clear for all to see, the chart shows no such thing. What it does show is a number of different models/scenarios, the majority of which show the temperature increase is more like ~1.75 to ~3.25 C in the next 100 years, not out of the question. What was the charts findings for the last 100 years? I'll help ~.75C.

Now you try. How about the last 20/30 years?

The explanation for the chart, from the report, is as follows.

Predictions of future climate depend on projections of future concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols. These depend on projections of emissions, which depend on changes in population, economic growth, technology, energy availability and national and international policies. The IPCC developed 35 different future emissions pathways or 'scenarios' [Nakicenovic and Swart 2000.] as a basis for projecting future climate changes. These SRES scenarios formed the basis of much of the climate projection work done for the IPCC's Third Assessment. [Cubasch et al, op cit.] As explained in Appendix 2, complex atmosphere-ocean global climate models (AOGCMS) were run on supercomputers to simulate future global and regional climate for a sub-range of these scenarios. A much simpler globally-averaged model was then 'tuned' to these AOGCM runs, and applied to all 35 SRES scenarios, leading to the global temperature projections shown in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1 indicates a range of possible future global temperatures, which reflect the range of plausible emissions scenarios and the range of AOGCM predictions for given scenarios. [There are differences between the predictions from individual climate models.] All the SRES scenarios project ongoing increases in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases over the coming century (even those scenarios where the emissions start to decrease at some point before 2100). The projected global temperature increases from all scenarios over the next 50 to 100 years are much larger than those that have occurred over the past 1000 years. The IPCC does not contend that any one SRES scenario is more likely than any other - it is as if they have provided a dice for predicting future conditions with 35 equally weighted sides.

 

[Moviefan-2]

And I already showed you a graph showing that the AR4 predictions are still accurate.

So you're completely rejecting the empirical results in the IPCC's AR5 report. I guess that makes you a "denier."

 

[groggy]

So you're completely rejecting the empirical results in the IPCC's AR5 report. I guess that makes you a "denier."

No, that's a straw man argument since I said nothing of the sort.
The AR4 and AR5 predictions are both looking quite reasonable right now, and I provided a chart that proved the AR4 prediction to be doing fine.
You are still relying on false information and cherry picking and are unable to follow the arguments or to decipher when you are posting bullshit.

Did you spot the difference in that graph yet?
Until you do, you've shown yourself to be incredibly incompetent.
Maybe you can ask for advice from your creationist expert.

 

[Moviefan-2]

What it does show is a number of different models/scenarios, the majority of which show the temperature increase is more like ~1.75 to ~3.25 C in the next 100 years.

That's a correct analysis of the chart, but it doesn't refute the point I made.

Take a look at the larger version of the figure on Page 34 of the IPCC's report:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/vol4/english/pdf/spm.pdf

All of the projections show the temperature skyrocketing upwards, from any starting point you want to use in the 1990s. The projections all show that temperatures should be significantly higher now than they were in 1997, 1998, or any other year in the 1990s.

Completely wrong.