25 Years Of Predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point’

[Moviefan-2]

That's a difference of 0.01ºC from the NOAA, its negligible.
But give me a link for that anyways, I'm interested.

March 2015 was the warmest March on record.
The year to date is the warmest on record.

You can use this link to find the table:

http://www.reportingclimatescience....nasa-april-2015-was-second-warmest-april.html

According to NASA's numbers, March 2002 and March 2010 were both warmer than March 2015.

There hasn't been a single month in 2015 that has been a record breaker. The year to date has only been 0.02 degrees warmer than 2010.

Are you really that stupid or are you really that dishonest?

Neither. What I am is accurate.

I didn't dispute that the temperature has increased from 2000. However, that increase simply followed the post-El Nino cooling period.

What I said is there hasn't been an increase in the 21st century that can be attributed to man-made CO2 emissions. We can all agree on that point.

As I said before, if it's OK for you to use 2000 as a starting point to judge the IPCC's predictions, then it is equally legitimate for K. Douglas to use 1998 as the starting point.

The most honest starting point in the 21st century (if you're using NASA's chart) is 2002.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Moviefan-2, when you say there hasn't been an increase in the 21st century that can be attributed to man-made CO2 emissions, then are you really saying that there WAS an increase but attributable to another cause?

Also, how do you explain all the brush fires? Seems like southern or more temperate zones are drier.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Moviefan-2, when you say there hasn't been an increase in the 21st century that can be attributed to man-made CO2 emissions, then are you really saying that there WAS an increase but attributable to another cause?

For the first two years of the 21st century, that's absolutely true. There was a super El Nino in 1997-98, followed by a huge cooling of the planet, and then the inevitable rise in temperatures that followed -- which started in the year 2000.

The super El Nino led to both a huge increase and then a huge drop in temperatures. Neither 1998 nor 2000 should be used as the starting point for testing the IPCC's hypothesis.

 

[Frankfooter]

Neither. What I am is accurate.

I didn't dispute that the temperature has increased from 2000. However, that increase simply followed the post-El Nino cooling period.

That makes no sense, there is no such thing as a 'post-El Nino cooling period'. El Nino brings up surface temperatures as long as it is in effect, when its done its back to as it was.

What I said is there hasn't been an increase in the 21st century that can be attributed to man-made CO2 emissions. We can all agree on that point.

No we can't, because you are fucking wrong.
Between 2000 and 2014 there was an increase of 0.27ºC over 14 years.

As I said before, if it's OK for you to use 2000 as a starting point to judge the IPCC's predictions, then it is equally legitimate for K. Douglas to use 1998 as the starting point.

As I said before, you picked 2000 as your starting date when you claimed there was no warming in the 21st century.
Now you want to cherry pick another date, and since there is only one possible date left for you, you want to use 2002.
That's cherry picking.

The most honest starting point in the 21st century (if you're using NASA's chart) is 2002.

Only if you're a bullshit cherry picker and the only date that works is 2002.
Otherwise there is absolutely no fucking reason to pick 2002.
None.

Meanwhile 2015 so far is the warmest year on record.
You're losing.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Any sane person can look at this graph from NASA and see that the trend line for the 21st century is not the same as the trend line for the 1980s and 1990s.

In fact, NASA -- the organization that produced the chart -- says temperatures have been "flattening" for the past 15 years.

 

[Frankfooter]

Any sane person can look at this graph from NASA and see that the trend line for the 21st century is not the same as the trend line for the 1980s and 1990s.

In fact, NASA -- the organization that produced the chart -- says temperatures have been "flattening" for the past 15 years.

Thanks for referring to it.
And note that black dote in the far, upper right corner.
That's where we are now, and its going up.

Check the dot at 2000 and then 2014 and you'll see that the temperature in the 21st century has gone up by 0.27ºC.

 

[Moviefan-2]

I repeat: Any sane person can look at that graph and see that the trend line for the 21st century is not the same as the trend line for the 1980s and the 1990s.

 

[GPIDEAL]

I repeat: Any sane person can look at that graph and see that the trend line for the 21st century is not the same as the trend line for the 1980s and the 1990s.

Temperature is still increasing.

So if not man-made, what is the alternative theory?

 

[Moviefan-2]

Temperature is still increasing.

So if not man-made, what is the alternative theory?

If you look at the warming that occurred in the early part of the 20th century, it was primarily driven by natural variants. Even the IPCC doesn't claim that man-made emissions were the primary driver of that warming.

Since the warming that occurred in the latter part of the 20th century was similar, there's no reason to believe it had to have been primarily caused by man-made CO2 emissions.

The way to test the hypothesis is to see how the predictions have fared. So far, they have been spectacularly wrong.

 

[GPIDEAL]

If you look at the warming that occurred in the early part of the 20th century, it was primarily driven by natural variants. Even the IPCC doesn't claim that man-made emissions were the primary driver of that warming.

Since the warming that occurred in the latter part of the 20th century was similar, there's no reason to believe it had to have been primarily caused by man-made CO2 emissions.

The way to test the hypothesis is to see how the predictions have fared. So far, they have been spectacularly wrong.

So are 95% of scientists wrong?

Are you a scientist?

 

[Moviefan-2]

So are 95% of scientists wrong?

Are you a scientist?

The "97% consensus" claim is BS propaganda. If you like, I can dig up some old threads where we've gone through this before -- but I can assure you it is pure political propaganda.

If you like, you can read this article on the matter: http://business.financialpost.com/f...ensus-among-the-misinformed-is-not-worth-much

The better way to look at these things is to look at how the models have performed. The University of Hamburg studied the projections and found they have a 98 per cent failure rate:

http://www.globalwarming.org/2013/08/13/can-climate-models-explain-the-15-year-slowdown-in-warming/

The hypothesis isn't supported by evidence. That's what matters most.

 

[red]

Moviefan-2, when you say there hasn't been an increase in the 21st century that can be attributed to man-made CO2 emissions, then are you really saying that there WAS an increase but attributable to another cause?

Also, how do you explain all the brush fires? Seems like southern or more temperate zones are drier.

Well rodin was spotted in the area

 

[red]

That makes no sense, there is no such thing as a 'post-El Nino cooling period'. El Nino brings up surface temperatures as long as it is in effect, when its done its back to as it was.




No we can't, because you are fucking wrong.
Between 2000 and 2014 there was an increase of 0.27ºC over 14 years.



As I said before, you picked 2000 as your starting date when you claimed there was no warming in the 21st century.
Now you want to cherry pick another date, and since there is only one possible date left for you, you want to use 2002.
That's cherry picking.


Only if you're a bullshit cherry picker and the only date that works is 2002.
Otherwise there is absolutely no fucking reason to pick 2002.
None.

Meanwhile 2015 so far is the warmest year on record.
You're losing.

Hey blackrock, give it up- he will never agree

 

[basketcase]

Any sane person can look at this graph from NASA and see that the trend line for the 21st century is not the same as the trend line for the 1980s and 1990s.

In fact, NASA -- the organization that produced the chart -- says temperatures have been "flattening" for the past 15 years.

Yep. The data for the last 10 years looks pretty much like that during the 70's and the 50's. That's why a trend line covers more than just a few years.

And once again you choose to ignore that the same NASA says that the last decade accounts for most of the 15 hottest years recorded.

 

[basketcase]

Temperature is still increasing.

So if not man-made, what is the alternative theory?

Last time I asked he said it was happening 'naturally' and never deigned to discuss what was causing it. Then he starts to complain about the lack of science. Of course 'naturally' is not a cause. He will never give evidence for an alternate cause but will just pretend his uninformed opinion is fact.

Science - replacing one hypothesis with one that better fits the data.
MF - claiming that nature (god?) is fucking with our weather.

 

[basketcase]

The "97% consensus" claim is BS propaganda. If you like, I can dig up some old threads where we've gone through this before -- but I can assure you it is pure political propaganda.
....

Yep. You argued that it was bad because only the opinions of those specifically in the field of climate were solicited, not all random people in some science related job.

Until you provide a hypothesis that better fits the data then you are scientifically talking out of your ass and no, saying it's magic won't do it.

 

[Anynym]

First, let's be clear about the so-called "consensus": There is NO SUCH THING. It is a word being bandied about by politicians to bully people into believing what the science does not support, and is based on a survey of political actors in a room. Surveys of the IMS, who are trained in such matters, suggest a number closer to 50% believe in the AGW story. Many leading climate scientists have gone on record saying that there is no conclusive evidence for the theory.

And if you use NASA's numbers, you have no right to complain about artificial sources: even NASA admits that they have falsified their data, although those aren't the terms they will use. They have uniformly reduced the temperature record in the past - "conveniently" supporting their claim that today's temperatures have risen, when all of that rise can be found in their adjustments.

As for "cherry picking" data: if you're looking at the satellite record for (e.g.) sea-ice extent, you need to look at the entire record (AGW Alarmists will drop historical data because it undermines their claims), and you need to look at the annual trend lines. AGW Alarmists claim that the Arctic will be completely ice-free in the summer by the year 2000? The record shows that it continues to vary between an annual minimum around 4m km2 and an annual maximum around 12 or 13 m km2. Then, AGW Alarmists argue that the observed *INCREASE* in sea ice extent is caused by global warming, claiming that ice melt is reducing ocean salinity - but we're STILL in the same range of winter / summer sea ice extent: there is no more "melting ice" than there was in the past to create the effect they claim.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Last time I asked he said it was happening 'naturally' and never deigned to discuss what was causing it. Then he starts to complain about the lack of science. Of course 'naturally' is not a cause. He will never give evidence for an alternate cause but will just pretend his uninformed opinion is fact.

Science - replacing one hypothesis with one that better fits the data.
MF - claiming that nature (god?) is fucking with our weather.

Actually, what I said is that scientists don't know enough about how the climate works to accurately predict what effect -- if any -- man-made CO2 emissions might have on the climate. The IPCC's spectacularly wrong predictions have confirmed that is the case.

As for how science works, a hypothesis can be rejected if it isn't supported by evidence. Science does not require an alternate hypothesis to be provided.

Finally, I do love how you once again tried to sneak in suggestions that my skepticism is based on religion (I'm an atheist, if you must know). Remind me -- which one of us has been following the ideas of a guy who says this is his "dharma." :thumb:

 

[Frankfooter]

First, let's be clear about the so-called "consensus": There is NO SUCH THING. .

You need to stop buying into this conspiracy business. Its really so much crazier then any 9/11 truther. You're proposing that 97% of the scientists who study climate are all in a conspiracy, that's thousands of scientists from over 100 countries that you are claiming all agreed on pulling a fast one on the world in order to reap the vast cash rewards of government funding. Its so stupid and so ridiculous.

Check the page at NASA.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

It repeats the fact that 97% of climatologists support the work of the IPCC, then lists the thousands and thousands of other scientists represented through almost every fucking major legit scientific organization who support the findings of the IPCC.

To claim that these thousands of scientists are pulling off a hoax for funding cash is just so stupid.
I can't believe anybody can believe it.

 

[Frankfooter]

Actually, what I said is that scientists don't know enough about how the climate works to accurately predict what effect -- if any -- man-made CO2 emissions might have on the climate. The IPCC's spectacularly wrong predictions have confirmed that is the case.

YOU don't know enough about the climate or science to judge the work of the IPCC.
You obviously can't even understand when you've been proven wrong, you are so wrapped up repeated debunked claims that its obvious you don't even understand anything of what you are saying.

The fact that you keep trying to claim there is no warming in the 21st century when I've repeatedly given you the numbers that show you are wrong just show that you are either incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest.

Why the fuck do you think you are smarter then the thousands of scientists who supported this letter?
http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/migrate/uploads/1021climate_letter1.pdf