Global Warming. Fact or grossly exaggerated??

[Moviefan-2]

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

Once again, Groggy posts a chart he doesn't actually understand.

The chart shows that temperature increases have been little more than an average of a 0.1 degrees Celsius per decade (actually, 0.12 degrees Celsius per decade if the IPCC has reported correctly).

But the IPCC predicted changes of 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade (later revised to 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade).

Even allowing for the fact that the results for two-thirds of that time period were already publicly known before the IPCC made its predictions, the predictions were still spectacularly wrong.

 

[blackrock13]

Since you have mentioned George Carlin...

Except that we know more about GW now than when George was flapping his cakehole. We are worse off than when he did this skit. His fatelist atitude is so weak.

 

[blackrock13]

LoL

................

Figured you wouldn't, FAIL!! All yap and no substance.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Except that we know more about GW now than when George was flapping his cakehole.

Er... the IPCC's prediction record is now remarkably worse. Not sure why you think that hurts Carlin's case.

 

[blackrock13]

Er... the IPCC's prediction record is now remarkably worse. Not sure why you think that hurts Carlin's case.

and yet the mainstream science community still give them substantial credence. Something is certainly missing in your claim.

 

[Moviefan-2]

and yet the mainstream science community still give them substantial credence. Something is certainly missing in your claim.

The Wall Street Journal had an article yesterday with a concluding paragraph that addresses the "missing" something.

Almost every global environmental scare of the past half century proved exaggerated including the population "bomb," pesticides, acid rain, the ozone hole, falling sperm counts, genetically engineered crops and killer bees. In every case, institutional scientists gained a lot of funding from the scare and then quietly converged on the view that the problem was much more moderate than the extreme voices had argued. Global warming is no different.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles...0001424052702303725404579460973643962840.html

Indeed.

Wait until the public money dries up. Then you'll find out where the "mainstream science community is.

 

[blackrock13]

The Wall Street Journal had an article yesterday with a concluding paragraph that addresses the "missing" something.



http://online.wsj.com/news/articles...0001424052702303725404579460973643962840.html

Indeed.

Wait until the public money dries up. Then you'll find out where the "mainstream science community is.

and the author of that opinion piece is Matt Ridley who's group, The Global Warming Policy Foundation , published an article that claimed that 900+ renowned researchers papers supported climate scepticism. It was later observed that 9 out of 10 of these authors were linked to EXXON. Many of the other 10% complained that their own papers did no such thing.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/900-papers-supporting-climate-scepticism-exxon-links/

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/900-papers-part-two-using-our-paper-is-misleading

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/201...nalysis-of-the-900plus-climate-skeptic-papers

Talk about bought and paid for, agenda driven, or just plained biased.

 

[groggy]

Once again, Groggy posts a chart he doesn't actually understand.

The chart shows that temperature increases have been little more than an average of a 0.1 degrees Celsius per decade (actually, 0.12 degrees Celsius per decade if the IPCC has reported correctly).
.

Nope, its you that never understands.
Different time frames.
The 0.2º C prediction was made from the '80's or so, I seem to recall, when the the CO2 output and lag effect time make those predictions make sense.
What this chart does is show that there is no pause, that the long term trend is up, which is what the IPCC predicted.
If you want to talk specifics, lets get into predictions and when they were made and use the proper start dates.

Just check the charts for CO2 emissions, add in the lag time and then its should be clear for those who can understand even a bit of the science.

Manmade emissions:

Atmospheric CO2:

 

[groggy]

Er... the IPCC's prediction record is now remarkably worse. Not sure why you think that hurts Carlin's case.

No, its spectacularly good.
Your argument only works with one cherry picked start date and one cherry picked end date, all other choices show the IPCC predictions in good light.
They certainly blow the asses off your lobbyists predictions and lack of science.

 

[groggy]

and the author of that opinion piece is Matt Ridley.

And apparently he's suspected of shady business practices as well.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmtreasy/56/5603.htm

The GWPF is another shady lobby group that refuses to release who's paying for it.
Shady, shady, shady.

 

[AK-47]

Well, well, well, what do we have here??!!
If you didnt think groggy and dumb-as-a-rock were full of shit before, you sure as hell will now.

Thats if you have half a brain.

I present to you the NOAA, which is a government organization. Its a climate prediction center. This is what these guys do for a living, they predict long-term climate. But guess what groggy and dumbrock, they also predict short-term climates. Its right on their frigging website :biggrin1:

It says "Experimental Unofficial Two-class Monthly & Seasonal Climate Outlooks". I guess they named it unofficial just in case they get it wrong and they can't be held responsible.....LOL

Here are their forecasts for 2014 right through till 2015: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/long_range/two_class.php

The very thing I asked groggy for which he was unwilling (or unable) to answer.


Screenshot:

 

[groggy]

Well, well, well, what do we have here??!!
If you didnt think groggy and dumb-as-a-rock were full of shit before, you sure as hell will now.

Thats if you have half a brain.

I present to you the NOAA, which is a government organization. Its a climate prediction center. This is what these guys do for a living, they predict long-term climate. But guess what groggy and dumbrock, they also predict short-term climates. Its right on their frigging website :biggrin1:

It says "Experimental Unofficial Two-class Monthly & Seasonal Climate Outlooks". I guess they named it unofficial just in case they get it wrong and they can't be held responsible.....LOL

Here are their forecasts for 2014 right through till 2015:

The very thing I asked groggy which he was unwilling (or unable to answer).
:

Ok, now that you think you've figured out how NOAA predicts the long term weather or short term climate, you can tell us:
What will the weather be like on July 1, 2014 in Florida.

Go show us how much you've learned.

 

[Moviefan-2]

The 0.2º C prediction was made from the '80's or so, I seem to recall, when the the CO2 output and lag effect time make those predictions make sense.

Wrong again.

The prediction was made in the IPCC's AR3 report in 2001 and was repeated in the AR4 report in 2007.

It was spectacularly wrong. Your own chart showing temperature increases from 1951 confirms that.

As for your graphs showing man-made CO2 emissions increasing, no one disputes that. That's the problem. There have been huge increases in man-made CO2 emissions, without the predicted increases in warming.

(By the way, it's dishonest to accuse me of "cherry picking" dates when my source was the graph that you provided.)

 

[AK-47]

Ok, now that you think you've figured out how NOAA predicts the long term weather or short term climate, you can tell us:
What will the weather be like on July 1, 2014 in Florida.

Go show us how much you've learned

First of all, I'm glad you're no longer disputing that climate can be predicted for a year or two ahead. Just as the NOAA site has done.

Second of all, I never asked you for the exact weather for a particular date. I asked you whether Toronto would have a generally hot, cold or normal summer.

The answer whether Florida will have a hot, cold or normal summer can also be found on NOAA website if you bothered to look. I'm going out tonight, but I'll post all the information tomorrow morning complete with graphs and everything. And remember, these are not my predictions, these are the NOAA predictions.

Have a good night dodgy groggy. I'll let this sink in for a bit

 

[blackrock13]

First of all, I'm glad you're no longer disputing that climate can be predicted for a year or two ahead. Just as the NOAA site has done.

Second of all, I never asked you for the exact weather for a particular date. I asked you whether Toronto would have a generally hot, cold or normal summer.

The answer whether Florida will have a hot, cold or normal summer can also be found on NOAA website if you bothered to look. I'm going out tonight, but I'll post all the information tomorrow morning complete with graphs and everything. And remember, these are not my predictions, these are the NOAA predictions.

Have a good night dodgy groggy. I'll let this sink in for a bit

Now do you really mean climate this time or do you mean 'weather'?

 

[groggy]

Wrong again.

The prediction was made in the IPCC's AR3 report in 2001 and was repeated in the AR4 report in 2007.

It was spectacularly wrong. Your own chart showing temperature increases from 1951 confirms that.

Page 6 of the summary for AR5 confirms the 0.2º C for the decades since 1980.
Spectacularly correct.

The temperature was relatively stable during the '50's, with most of the increases happening as CO2 is building up. When you include those figures in averages it lessens the increase, if you do the same thing from the '80's it looks more like 0.2ºC per decade. But both show an increase in global temperature that is unprecedented in history and the fact that you can see the anthropomorphic climate changes we are living through from both dates shows the strength of their findings, as opposed to your rather weak argument which works for only one set of dates.

That is what the IPCC is predicting and that is what we are seeing.
Their predictions are of course way more nuanced then this discussion and most certainly more nuanced then your arguments. They give a range of outcomes based on a range of emissions with a percentage range of how much they trust their predictions. Your claims they predicted '0.2ºC' is an overly simplistic statement and not at all accurate. The fact of the matter is that their predictions have been really quite good and no other method from your lobbyists and cranks has either made a more accurate prediction or come up with a believable alternate theory to explain what we are living through.

Your claims are clearly based on something you picked up on some lobbyists blog, since its claims are clearly disputed by the very paper you think supports it. Your lobbyists know full well that you won't or can't understand the full papers so feel free to go all Rob Ford on the IPCC work and make outright false claims knowing full well that suckers like you will not challenge them.

Only a fool can't see that when 13 of the 14 warmest years on record have occurred since 2000 that something serious is going on.

 

[basketcase]

Total bullshit.
....

I suggest you should reread your posting history. You have repeatedly said that the IPCC shouldn't advocate and you have repeatedly suggested that the IPCC is preventing (imaginary) scientists from publishing opposing views.

And as for claims of consensus, that's because there is a consensus among all of the major scientific organizations world wide whether you like it or not.

 

[groggy]

Now do you really mean climate this time or do you mean 'weather'?

That's when the fun starts when he starts trying to make predictions tomorrow.

 

[Moviefan-2]

I suggest you should reread your posting history. You have repeatedly said that the IPCC shouldn't advocate...

I suggest you re-read my posting history and try to learn something, rather than looking for ways to score cheap political (not scientific) points.

I didn't say the IPCC shouldn't advocate. I don't care what the IPCC does.

What I said is that scientists shouldn't be engaged in political advocacy. True scientists must do everything they can to try to eliminate biases from their work. They most definitely shouldn't be focused exclusively on trying to find "evidence" to support a political position. They should be looking at all the evidence to learn the truth about how the natural world works.

If the IPCC wanted to be taken seriously as a body that speaks for science, then it shouldn't be involved in political/activist advocacy. That's a discussion about the IPCC's credibility, not its right to free speech.

...and you have repeatedly suggested that the IPCC is preventing (imaginary) scientists from publishing opposing views.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one. I don't think you're lying. I just don't think you know what you're talking about.

I never said or implied that the IPCC is "preventing" anyone from doing anything. You asked about the absurd situation we face that has the IPCC's "certainty" level increasing to an incredible 95 per cent at the same time that the empirical evidence shows the IPCC's predictions were spectacularly wrong.

I said the 95 per cent "certainty" statement is mostly about driving the IPCC's activist agenda and getting headlines (a commonly held view, for those who are into the whole "consensus" thing). The buy-in that might have been obtained from any scientists who reviewed that statement (assuming a few did review it) can probably be attributed to drinking the Kool-Aid.

I never suggested anyone was being "prevented" from publishing opposing views.

And as for claims of consensus, that's because there is a consensus among all of the major scientific organizations world wide whether you like it or not.

"All" is a stretch (what about the U.K. Institute of Physics?) but I will agree that many associations have provided some of the nicest support money can buy.

As I said yesterday, wait until the money dries up. Then you'll find out what the broader scientific community really thinks. Trust me, I've seen this movie before.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Page 6 of the summary for AR5 confirms the 0.2º C for the decades since 1980.

It does no such thing. Now, you're just making stuff up.

(And you seem to be contradicting yourself about whether the IPCC predicted increases of 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade. ).

The IPCC report says that the increase from 1951 to 2010 was 0.12 degrees Celsius per decade.

Your own graph confirms that, and shows the same trend from 1980. It shows the average temperature increasing from 0.2 degrees Celsius in 1980 to about 0.5 degrees Celsius in 2010 -- an increase of about 0.1 degrees Celsius per decade.

Similarly, the graph on Page 6 of the IPCC report shows the same thing. It shows a change of a little over 0.3 degrees Celsius from 1980 to 2010.

Furthermore, the IPCC report says the increase from 1998 to 2012 was the statistically insignificant 0.05 degrees Celsius per decade.

Those are the numbers cited by the IPCC, which confirm the IPCC's predicted increases of 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade and then 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade were spectacularly wrong.

Your own graph confirms that my numbers are right, as did Skeptical Science.com's Dana Nuccitelli in his Guardian column.

The facts are clear. The IPCC's predictions were spectacularly wrong, as I have said many times.