Global Warming. Fact or grossly exaggerated??

[groggy]

On the contrary. It is the IPCC that appears to be guilty of cherry picking dates.

Let's explore this a bit.

Here is the entire paragraph that Groggy lives to cite from the IPCC's AR5 report (Page 15):

"The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend (very high confidence). There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years (e.g., 1998 to 2012)."

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

Are you that stupid that you have to repeat this same false argument over and over again?
They say there are differences in trends for short periods (10-15 years), that is because the climate doesn't move in nice smooth lines. Their predictions have been spectacularly good over the long term, but the noise in the climate charts (wiggly lines in the graph for fools like you) show that it doesn't move smoothly.

And as they said in their report:
This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections

That's the long term changes they predicted and that's what we are seeing.

If you went to page 6 you would have seen the graph that shows the surface temperature (where only about 20% of the excess heat of the planet is going) is increasing at about 0.2ºC per decade, as they predicted and as you bet wouldn't happen. That is the long term predictions they are making and they are shown to be good.

And again, your argument only works from those dates, it doesn't work for 10 year periods and it doesn't work if you move the start date forward or back a year even. That's cherry picking.

So, while the IPCC concedes that the short-term predictions were wrong, it claims the long-term trend "agrees" with the predictions.

As explained, yes.
See the chart on page 6 of your supplied link.

According to the IPCC, the rate of warming since 1951 has been 0.12 degrees Celsius per decade (Page 5). As well, if you look at footnote 5 at the bottom of Page 5, it says the trend since 1995 has been 0.13 degrees Celsius per decade.

Yet, in 1990, the IPCC predicted the warming increases in this century would be 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade (first page of the Executive Summary): http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_spm.pdf

Wrong.
They said 'over a century' with the worst case CO2 emissions then they would average 0.3ºC per decade.
If we lessened emissions a bit then they predicted 0.2ºC and if we really tried then maybe 0.1ºC.
You need to wait 80 years before you make any claims that this prediction is wrong.

And again, you are using dishonest cherry picked dates. As they have reported:
This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections

Even by 2007, the IPCC was predicting temperature increases of 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade: https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

Which is what we have seen.
From their report:
This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections

The IPCC's predictions have been completely off,

False.
As shown by the quotes above they have been right on the fucking money.
You are just using lobbyist talking points that either outright lie or try to misquote to try to make a case.

Read the report, all of it, not just the bits linked from your ex-tobacco folks.

 

[Moviefan-2]

And as they said in their report:
This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections

Just for fun, I did a document search in the Summary for Policy Makers of the AR5 report for every reference to "0.2" and for a sentence that begins with "This can now be compared with".

As everyone who knows Groggy might have guessed, no such sentence appears in the Summary for Policy Makers document.

In fact, the actual numbers are as I described them in post #1201. Nowhere near 0.2 degrees Celsius. Over a 60-year period, the IPCC was off by at least 50 per cent, and for the most recent period of time it was off by 75 per cent.

Even Skepticalscience.com's Dana Nuccitelli admits the Earth's temperature has only increased 0.6 degrees Celsius over 60 years -- an average of 0.1 degrees Celsius per decade.

We've observed about 0.6°C average global surface warming over the past 60 years.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...2013/sep/27/global-warming-ipcc-report-humans

Sorry, Groggy, but your own eco-heroes say you are wrong.

 

[Moviefan-2]

They said 'over a century' with the worst case CO2 emissions then they would average 0.3ºC per decade.

Not quite. They predicted 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade under the "business as usual" scenario, and actually predicted the increases could be as much as 0.5 degrees Celsius per decade.

 

[blackrock13]

Just for fun, I did a document search in the Summary for Policy Makers of the AR5 report for every reference to "0.2" and for a sentence that begins with "This can now be compared with".

As everyone who knows Groggy might have guessed, no such sentence appears in the Summary for Policy Makers document.

In fact, the actual numbers are as I described them in post #1201. Nowhere near 0.2 degrees Celsius. Over a 60-year period, the IPCC was off by at least 50 per cent, and for the most recent period of time it was off by 75 per cent.

Even Skepticalscience.com's Dana Nuccitelli admits the Earth's temperature has only increased 0.6 degrees Celsius over 60 years -- an average of 0.1 degrees Celsius per decade.



http://www.theguardian.com/environm...2013/sep/27/global-warming-ipcc-report-humans

Sorry, Groggy, but your own eco-heroes say you are wrong.

You searched a 'SUMMARY' and couldn't find a reference to 0.2. What a surprise. Maybe you should check the abstract at the same time. Better yet, how about the main body of the report.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You searched a 'SUMMARY' and couldn't find a reference to 0.2. What a surprise. Maybe you should check the abstract at the same time. Better yet, how about the main body of the report.

How about I quote the relative findings from Page 5 of the Summary for Policy Makers:

In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1). Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

The IPCC's findings:

1) The rate of warming from 1998 to 2012 was 0.05 degrees Celsius per decade.

2) The rate of warming from 1951 to 2012 was 0.12 degrees Celsius per decade.

Groggy is wrong.

(If you want to know the truth, my guess is that Groggy -- who lifts his information from propaganda websites -- is quoting the wrong report. My suspicion is his quote is from the now outdated AR4 report from 2007. But Groggy can look it up for himself.)

 

[AK-47]

Straightforward answer.
You are asking for weather predictions, we are talking about climate predictions.
Start another thread if you want to talk weather.

For climate prediction: the planet will probably be warmer this year then last and we probably will have more extreme weather events

Oh I understand the difference between climate and weather perfectly. And so does Dr. David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia.

That didnt stop him from predicting what local weather in UK would be like, however. He predicted snowless winters, which turned out to be COMPLETELY WRONG!!

See here: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

I'm just wondering if you could make a similar prediction for the general weather here in Toronto.
And since you're so much more intelligent than most of us, you shouldnt have a problem answering the question??

And dont respond by saying weather =/= climate, because that didnt stop Dr David Viner from WRONGLY predicting what upcoming UK winters would be like. Surely our groggy should be able to tell us what our Toronto summers will be like, since he claims to understand all the global warming science

 

[blackrock13]

Oh I understand the difference between climate and weather perfectly. And so does Dr. David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia.

That didnt stop him from predicting what local weather in UK would be like, however. He predicted snowless winters, which turned out to be COMPLETELY WRONG!!

See here: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

I'm just wondering if you could make a similar prediction for the general weather here in Toronto.
And since you're so much more intelligent than most of us, you shouldnt have a problem answering the question??

And dont respond by saying weather =/= climate, because that didnt stop Dr David Viner from WRONGLY predicting what upcoming UK winters would be like. Surely our groggy should be able to tell us what our Toronto summers will be like, since he claims to understand all the global warming science

Meteorology and Climatology aren't mutually exclusive, but they are different. You can be a climatologist but deal with weather, Davis Phillips Environment Canada does it all the time, yet weather doesn't explain climate change and no you don't know the difference or you would not have made idiot claim regarding Viner. You have been told before, giving long range weather forecast, longer than 7 days, is for all intents and purpose not an exact science, but you clearly don't remember that either. You prove with almost every post what little you truly know and how little you retain when told.

 

[AK-47]

Meteorology and Climatology are mutually exclusive, but they are different. You can be a climatologist but deal with weather, Davis Phillips does it al the time but weather does explain climate change and no you don't know the difference or you would have mad idiot claim regarding Viner. As you have been told before, giving long range weather forecast, longer than 7 days, is a waste of time, but you clearly don't remeber that either. you prove with almost every post what little you truly know and how little you retain when told

I didnt ask for the weather, you dumb fuck.

I asked what the upcoming summer climate in Toronto will be. While groggy is at it, I want him to predict what the next 3 years of climate will bring. Exactly the same way Dr. David Viner did, except he predicted winters for the UK (based on his global warming models)

 

[Moviefan-2]

That didnt stop him from predicting what local weather in UK would be like, however. He predicted snowless winters, which turned out to be COMPLETELY WRONG!!

See here: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

That story is still one of my favourites. The believers went nuts when I posted a thread about it last year.

Some even tried to argue that maybe Viner was right about the situation in the U.K. I had to post news reports from recent winters in the U.K. to (hopefully) convince them that simply wasn't the case.

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is." Hilarious.

 

[groggy]

Just for fun, I did a document search in the Summary for Policy Makers of the AR5 report for every reference to "0.2" and for a sentence that begins with "This can now be compared with"..

That is from the 2007 report.

If you would prefer something from AR5, how about this one:
trends based on short records are very sensitive to
the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming
over the past 15 years (1998–2012;

 

[groggy]

I didnt ask for the weather, you dumb fuck.

I asked what the upcoming summer climate in Toronto will be. While groggy is at it, I want him to predict what the next 3 years of climate will bring. Exactly the same way Dr. David Viner did, except he predicted winters for the UK (based on his global warming models)

That's still a request for a long term weather prediction.
You really don't know the difference yet, do you?

But why don't we check the temperature predictions of the IPCC vs your deniers, hacks, hackers, lobbyists and fools:

 

[AK-47]

That's still a request for a long term weather prediction.
You really don't know the difference yet, do you?

Then what was it that Dr. Viner was doing when he made his prediction?? Was he predicting weather or climate??

 

[blackrock13]

That story is still one of my favourites. The believers went nuts when I posted a thread about it last year.

Some even tried to argue that maybe Viner was right about the situation in the U.K. I had to post news reports from recent winters in the U.K. to (hopefully) convince them that simply wasn't the case.

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is." Hilarious.

As we all know there are drama queens in both camps, Viner might just be one of those. At last he doesn't think the earth is 6,000 years old like one of your experts like Judy Curry. Now that's crazy.

 

[blackrock13]

Hey groggy, since you claim to understand the IPCC data so well, why dont you predict for us based on IPCC data which of the following summer's we're supposed to get here in Toronto this year:

1. Normal summer
2. Hotter then normal summer
3. Colder then normal summer

Fairly straight forward question, groggy. And since you claim to be so much more intelligent than most of us, you should have no problem answering it :eyebrows:

I didnt ask for the weather, you dumb fuck.

I asked what the upcoming summer climate in Toronto will be. While groggy is at it, I want him to predict what the next 3 years of climate will bring. Exactly the same way Dr. David Viner did, except he predicted winters for the UK (based on his global warming models)

Actually that isn't what you asked. You wanted the weather but changed asked for the climate the second time around, a different thing alltogether. The fact that you expected the (weather) forecast for the summer of 2014 and then the next 3 years shows how little you truly know, just like the members who said this past winter severe weather showed that the climate scientists were so wrong.

Actually Toronto's climate is generally classified as Humid Continental/warm summer subtype, or for those who can't handle big words Dfb

 

[groggy]

That story is still one of my favourites.

Not as entertaining as this one:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7349


Oh, and here's a quote from Viner in your article:

Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said.

 

[Moviefan-2]

That is from the 2007 report.

Exactly. And it is no longer accurate, or close to it.

The current information shows the IPCC's predictions were spectacularly wrong. That's the case for both the short term and the long term.

 

[Moviefan-2]

As we all know there are drama queens in both camps, Viner might just be one of those. At last he doesn't think the earth is 6,000 years old like one of your experts like Judy Curry. Now that's crazy.

I think you're mixing up your skeptics. I've never seen anything that suggests Curry is religious.

As for Viner, he was hardly a fringe player. The CRU at the University of East Anglia has played a leading role in the IPCC reports.

Oh, and here's a quote from Viner in your article:

Are you suggesting that you think Viner was right?

You think kids today don't know what snow looks like? Seriously?

 

[blackrock13]

I think you're mixing up your skeptics. I've never seen anything that suggests Curry is religious.

As for Viner, he was hardly a fringe player. The CRU at the University of East Anglia has played a leading role in the IPCC reports.


Are you suggesting that you think Viner was right?

You think kids today don't know what snow looks like? Seriously?

You may be right, she's one who gets funding forom the oil industry. Viner may work at East Anglia but that doesn't mean he's not a little over the top in his descriptions.

 

[AK-47]

Actually that isn't what you asked. You wanted the weather but changed asked for the climate the second time around, a different thing alltogether

No, I'm just changing the terminology so groggy will finally answer the question. Also, I didnt ask you dumbrock. I know you love to hear yourself talk though, but please stay out of this one

Then what was it that Dr. Viner was doing when he made his prediction?? Was he predicting weather or climate??

^^^^^^ Answer the question, groggy!!!

 

[groggy]

Exactly. And it is no longer accurate, or close to it.

The current information shows the IPCC's predictions were spectacularly wrong. That's the case for both the short term and the long term.

Bullshit.
The current predictions are sadly spectacularly accurate.

The 2000-2010 decade was the warmest on record and with 2014 to probably be an el nino year I would expect it to be another record or near record year.
The only ones saying there is no climate change or that climate change has paused is those who stand to lose money should we take action on climate change.
The ones who are losing money on climate change now are all in agreement, for instance the insurance industry.
And all legit scientific associations representing the very vast majority of legit (non-creationist) scientists back the IPCC.

All legit science backs the IPCC findings.
The WMO:

"There is no standstill in global warming," Jarraud said as he presented the WMO's annual review of the world's climate which concluded that 2013 tied with 2007 as the sixth hottest year since 1850 when recording of annual figures began.

"The warming of our oceans has accelerated, and at lower depths. More than 90 percent of the excess energy trapped by greenhouse gases is stored in the oceans.

"Levels of these greenhouse gases are at a record, meaning that our atmosphere and oceans will continue to warm for centuries to come. The laws of physics are non-negotiable," Jarraud told a news conference.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/03/24/us-climatechange-temperature-idUKBREA2N1MG20140324

That is the most recent record, more recent then your cherry picked dates.