25 Years Of Predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point’
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
Doesn't matter, his opinion is worthless.Did he go so far as to say that?
Hans von Storch, the mathematician author, has been caught fudging the numbers.
Another shoddy source from the master of shoddy sources, moviefan.
A bunch of his buddies are linked to big oil money, but I haven't seen any direct links to Storch.Did Big Oil get to Storch too?
Just reports of a mathematician who does bad math.
Whether he's dishonest or not very smart remains to be discovered.
The really funny part is that you cite links claiming to uphold the merits of fake "Nobel laureate" Michael Mann's research. Yeah, Mann's work has certainly held up over time. :biggrin1:Ah, the paper by von Storch, a mathemetician, who resigned as editor from Climate Research after several faked papers were published there under his watch.
Storch was also caught fudging the numbers in one of his own papers, misrepresenting the data used in models.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/312/5773/529.2.abstract
Not the most sterling of sources to start with.
No wonder you like that paper, its the same stupid old cherry picked dates argument.
Storch starts with super El Nino year 1998 and go 12 years to one of the colder years of the 21st century, just as you base all your claims on those cherry picked dates.
If he started with other dates his claim looks silly.
1999 = 0.41ºC to 2013 = 0.60º C - right about where the IPCC predicted at about 0.2ºC
Its another ridiculous cherry picking claim which has now been shown to be false with the latest rises in temperature, another paper by the seriously flawed and probably faker, Hans von Storch.
You should retract this claim, the author of that paper is not credible.
Of course, you produced nothing to show that the University of Hamburg's analysis of the computer model predictions was wrong -- because you have nothing.
(In fact, earlier in this thread, you claimed that a graph produced by the IPCC had come from "deniers").
Furthermore, the claims about "cherry picking" are hilarious coming from you -- a guy who deliberately selects strong La Nina periods as starting points on a graph to try to prove man-made global warming.
You have repeatedly engaged in falsely attributing quotes to me because you don't want to accept what others have said. And you have engaged in deliberate misquotes to set up straw men arguments.
Your constant use of falsehoods underscores the whole point. If there is one word that characterizes pretty much everything you have posted in this thread, it is this: Dishonest.
Perhaps you think you're fooling others. You're not fooling me.
The fact that you have to resort to repeated dishonesty says it all. If you had actual evidence, you wouldn't need to be so dishonest.
I challenge you to prove 'everything', or even just anything, I've said here is 'dishonest'.Your constant use of falsehoods underscores the whole point. If there is one word that characterizes pretty much everything you have posted in this thread, it is this: Dishonest.
Here's a quick yes or no question for Frankfooter.
Yes or no: Do you agree with NASA that the Earth's temperature has been "flattening" over the past 15 years?
Yes or no: Do you agree with NASA that the Earth's temperature has been "flattening" over the past 15 years?
You mean like the difference between "flattening" and "flat"?I challenge you to prove 'everything', or even just anything, I've said here is 'dishonest'.
Or the difference between a horizontal trend line and a "horizontal line"?
Or your denying that 1999-2000 was a strong La Nina period?
Etc.
Get specific.You mean like the difference between "flattening" and "flat"?
Or the difference between a horizontal trend line and a "horizontal line"?
Or your denying that 1999-2000 was a strong La Nina period?
Etc.
None of those are signs or 'dishonesty'.
And when you totally fail to find me being 'dishonest' I also will expect an apology.
Fair?
Go ahead.
They are examples of blatant falsehoods.Get specific.
None of those are signs or 'dishonesty'.
And when you totally fail to find me being 'dishonest' I also will expect an apology.
Fair?
Go ahead.
I'm a believer in evidence-based conclusions. If you want me to believe that these falsehoods were unintentional, you need to clearly state -- on the record -- that you are a complete idiot who has no idea what he is talking about.
You admit to that and I'll apologize for stating that your falsehoods were deliberate attempts to be dishonest.
Otherwise, I stand by my statement.
It's your call.
Post the exact statement with link and tell me how you think its a falsehood.They are examples of blatant falsehoods.
I'm a believer in evidence-based conclusions. If you want me to believe that these falsehoods were unintentional, you need to clearly state -- on the record -- that you are a complete idiot who has no idea what he is talking about.
.
And be prepared to apologize when you are once again shown you are wrong, just as you were when you claimed I was cherry picking a date when I used dates you specified.
Read post 249.Post the exact statement with link and tell me how you think its a falsehood.
And be prepared to apologize when you are once again shown you are wrong, just as you were when you claimed I was cherry picking a date when I used dates you specified.
I have told you what you need to do if you want me to accept that your blatant falsehoods were unintentional.
I've asked you three times to prove your allegations and three times you've failed.Read post 249.
I have told you what you need to do if you want me to accept that your blatant falsehoods were unintentional.
Its you that seems to be making up claims here.
Prove it or admit you are faking claims that I'm dishonest.
We'll add this one to the list.I've asked you three times to prove your allegations and three times you've failed.
Its you that seems to be making up claims here.
Prove it or admit you are faking claims that I'm dishonest.
Still can't prove anything, can you?We'll add this one to the list.
If you can't prove anything then you should apologize for accusing me of dishonesty.
Man up and apologize.
Really? You have spent your time on this thread arguing for implausible alternative theories and refusing to accept the theory that has by far the best alignment with the data.I'm a believer in evidence-based conclusions.
Like creationists you point to the fact that no scientific theory is perfect and then try to substitute crazy and grossly troubled alternate theories for the prevailing theory.
Like 9/11 conspiracy nuts you turn a blind eye to the gaping holes in your theory and jump all over minor issues with the generally accepted one.
It seems you adopted your views more for ideological reasons, and not because of the evidence.
The evidence points overwhelmingly to a human cause of global warming.
In scientific terms, it's not a theory, it's a hypothesis. And it's a hypothesis that is not currently supported by any evidence.Really? You have spent your time on this thread arguing for implausible alternative theories and refusing to accept the theory that has by far the best alignment with the data.
The way to test a hypothesis is to make predictions and then measure the accuracy of the predictions. In this case, the predictions have a 98 per cent failure rate.
Even NASA admits there has been a "flattening" of the Earth's temperature in the past 15 years, which is not what the models predicted.
Fuck.In scientific terms, it's not a theory, it's a hypothesis. And it's a hypothesis that is not currently supported by any evidence.
The way to test a hypothesis is to make predictions and then measure the accuracy of the predictions. In this case, the predictions have a 98 per cent failure rate.
Even NASA admits there has been a "flattening" of the Earth's temperature in the past 15 years, which is not what the models predicted.
Do you have to keep repeating the same old talking point you copied off of some site 3 years ago?
Because its out of date.
The cherry pickers, like your faulty mathematician Storch, who used that argument used it only up until about 2012 or 2013.
Since then we're back to record warmth.
Its old, out of date and just fucking wrong.
14 of the 15 warmest years on record have happened this century.
2014 was the warmest year on record
The temperature has gone up 0.27ºC this century.
2015 is on track to be even warmer then 2014.
You are wrong and should stop making false statements that have repeatedly been shown to be wrong.
Stop lying.
Really?Do you have to keep repeating the same old talking point you copied off of some site 3 years ago?
Because its out of date.
Here's a news report from the American Geophysical Union that was released yesterday:
https://eos.org/articles/tracking-the-missing-heat-from-the-global-warming-hiatus
Let's focus in on the first paragraph, with some bolded emphasis added by me:
"At the end of the 20th century, climate scientists noticed what they thought at first was an anomaly: a slowdown in the pace of global warming in the lower atmosphere. Today, it is a recognized trend that has lasted more than 15 years. Perplexed, oceanographers are on a hunt to find where this missing heat has gone."
A "recognized trend", indeed.
The IPCC, NASA, NOAA, the Met Office in the U.K. have all confirmed that there has been a pause or "flattening" (choose whatever term you like) of the Earth's temperature in the last 15 years.
You keep insisting the IPCC got it "spectacularly right" and that the flattening is consistent with what the IPCC predicted.
Prove it.
Here's the link to the IPCC's AR3 report from 2001: http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/
Show me where the IPCC predicted that there would be a 15- to 18-year flattening of the Earth's temperature.
There is something unusual because in previous warming periods, the earth wasn't supporting 7 billion people....
-- There is no evidence of anything unusual having occurred in the 20th century or so far in the 21st century.
...
The current change is detrimental to human society and it has a cause. The clear majority of climate scientists see human CO2 as a major player. You can keep on saying that god/magic is somehow causing this without an identifiable cause but the scientific community disagrees with you.
p.s. Every change has a cause, even if it is not humans who cause it. Your refusal to even suggest a cause makes all your claims of a scientific view a pile of crap.
I find it pretty amusing that a guy who disputes the 97% of climate scientists claim pulls out this "failure rate" without shame.WRT that 98% failure rate.
Is there a margin of error in these computer model predictions?
