So again, nothing creditable to add to this thread, keep up the good work.You know whats funny about blackrock, he literally has no idea how stupid he is
Figure you come back with that.Now, you're just throwing around baseless insults. Unlike some people on this thread, I knew that the Mann-made graph cited earlier was from 2001, not 2013.
As for Groggy's propaganda chart, you can get him to post it again. I don't spend my time searching the propaganda websites.
If he does post it, you will see the chart shows "adjusted" predictions to account for the new premise that the expected warming went into the deep ocean. The predictions for the surface temperatures were then "adjusted."
But, of course, these "adjustments" were only made after the actual studies of the Earth's temperature were already publicly reported.
Anyone can look good making retroactive "predictions" about past events where the outcomes are already known. For example, you don't have to be a brilliant historian to "predict" whether or not Hitler will win World War II.
--
As for the scientific method, one of the clear standards for a credible theory is that it should allow you to always make reliable predictions.
You can't really say that about the man-made CO2 premise, can you?
Your assertion that I read graphs "badly" was an insult.Nothing I posted was untrue, let alone an insult.
The "per decade" time frames for the predictions were set by the IPCC, not by me. There's nothing improper about holding the IPCC to account for its own predictions. Indeed, believers in science would say that is exactly what we should be doing.nothing like looking at key holed predictions that don't work out over a really short time frame and saying see the whole GW science is wrong, rotten, biased, or phoney.
It's clear you read the last one badly, claiming sky rocketing temperature which clearly wasn't the case, so not an insult if true. The end result was within the margin of error, so not as you would like others to think. I'll let the statistical pros on TERB try to explain it in more depth for you if they feel so inclined, bur somehow I doubt any will.Your suggestion that I read graphs "badly" was an insult.
As for the "skyrocketing" increases, the prediction was made by Mann and adopted by the IPCC. They definitely were wrong.
Take another look at the graph. It did predict skyrocketing increases and all of its predictions said that temperatures would be much higher today than what they were in 1997 or 1998.It's clear you read the last one badly, claiming sky rocketing temperature which clearly wasn't the case, so not an insult if true. The end result was within the margin of error, so not as you would like others to think. I'll let the statistical pros on TERB try to explain it in more depth for you if they feel so inclined, bur somehow I doubt any will.
Take another look at the graph. It did predict skyrocketing increases and all of its predictions said that temperatures would be much higher today than what they were in 1997 or 1998.
Completely wrong.
(I'm starting to wonder if you understand the difference between a trajectory and an end result. It is true that the most alarming results are at the 100-year point, but the skyrocketing trajectory that supposedly gets to those dramatic results -- in all of the predictions -- begins at about 1990 and the lines are consistently on skyrocketing trajectories throughout the next 100-plus years.)
I am still waiting to see if you can actually read that graph, moviefan.Take another look at the graph. It did predict skyrocketing increases and all of its predictions said that temperatures would be much higher today than what they were in 1997 or 1998.
This is going to be fun.They wouldnt put their bios and pics up on their website if it wasnt a long-term appointment, smartypants
:
It's funny how you no longer provide the sources for your charts. However, here's the chart that you provided earlier, which clearly shows the dramatic difference between the IPCC's actual predictions (the line without the "adjustments") and the actual results.Please tell us the differences, if there were changes made, what the predictions were based on this graph.
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdfThere are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years (e.g., 1998 to 2012).
The prediction can be off because as mentioned on more than one occasion unseen occurrences like volcanoes mass fires and earthquake.We are still waiting for the big one on the west coast. The adjustment is clearly explained, taking in CGCM (look that one up) westerly winds predictions that weren't included in the original, big deal. Certainly not the conspiracy you make it out to be.It's funny how you no longer provide the sources for your charts. However, here's the chart that you provided earlier, which clearly shows the dramatic difference between the IPCC's actual predictions (the line without the "adjustments") and the actual results.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/02/going-with-the-wind/#more-16861
Perhaps you can explain why your own charts completely contradict each other.
Never mind that the chart that was done by the Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media also showed completely different results from your chart, and showed that the models were overwhelmingly wrong. And the study done by the University of Hamburg found that 98 per cent of the models failed to predict the pause.
Finally, we go to the IPCC itself, which said the following (Page 15):
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
The IPCC says there are "differences" between what was predicted and what was actually observed. I don't see why you need me to confirm that for you.
Furthermore, the IPCC is completely at odds with whoever produced your un-sourced chart.
What do you think the word "expert" means, groggy?? This is gonna be fun.This is going to be fun.
What do you suppose the term 'workshop expert bios' means?
Its right there on the top of the page, on the http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-review-bios.pdfdocument that you supplied and is on the APS website.
To some an expert means a 'has been drip'. He may not have answered it because I did.What do you think the word "expert" means, groggy?? This is gonna be fun.
And you never answered my previous question, why do you think APS has suddenly appointed 3 climate skeptics to their panel?? Do you think they just did that for the heck of it, so they can have a brief discussion??
Unfortunately on a global scale, it would be bad for about 7 billion humans.i like warm weathers
There is no empirical evidence to support the premise of "global warming" as the warmists define it. Computer model projections are not evidence.And do we have a theory that better explains global warming than CO2 or is this still the same argument used to 'disprove' evolution?
Spectacularly "off," in this case.The prediction can be off because as mentioned on more than one occasion unseen occurrences like volcanoes mass fires and earthquake.We are still waiting for the big one on the west coast. The adjustment is clearly explained, taking in CGCM (look that one up) westerly winds predictions that weren't included in the original, big deal.
A GMSATA of <0.3 by 2020, over 25 yers is not what I would call spectacular, but maybe in your limited view of the world, every little bit is a victory.Spectacularly "off," in this case.
In any event, I'm not sure how you explain Groggy's competing graphs -- particularly since he has claimed that both of the contradictory graphs support his position on "the science."