President Is Dead Wrong About Climate Change: Nobel Prize Winning Scientist

[basketcase]

...
IPCC:

....

Seems to me that except for the year 2000, the the error bars of the observations fit into the projections for the past 15 years or so.

Also worth noting is the graph carefully omits the data from 2012 to 2014.

2012 had a +0.6 variation. Well in the middle of the projections.
2013 also had a +0.6 temperature variation. Dead center of the predictions.
2014 was +0.68 which puts it slightly above the central projections.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-temps.html
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/1029/
http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2015/01/16/global-temperature-in-2014-and-2015/



Seems your "spectacularly wrong" description is spectacularly wrong.

 

[Frankfooter]

Seems to me that except for the year 2000, the the error bars of the observations fit into the projections for the past 15 years or so.

Also worth noting is the graph carefully omits the data from 2012 to 2014.

2012 had a +0.6 variation. Well in the middle of the projections.
2013 also had a +0.6 temperature variation. Dead center of the predictions.
2014 was +0.68 which puts it slightly above the central projections.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-temps.html
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/1029/
http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2015/01/16/global-temperature-in-2014-and-2015/



Seems your "spectacularly wrong" description is spectacularly wrong.

Exactly, Moviefan hasn't caught on to the fact that those charts are actually really quite accurate.
He can't read them well enough to understand that we are smack dab in the middle of the red bars of predictions right now.
That the very chart he accuses of being wrong is bang on the money.

 

[bishop]

From that graph take the most generous prediction FAR, it has the largest error envelope so using FAR is to the advantage of AWG supporters.

In FAR, 8 of the 21 actual temperatures are outside of FAR, so FAR has an accuracy of 13/21 = 62%.

The only scientific field in which 62% accuracy is considered good enough is climate science, I would argue that climate science is not science so that leaves no scientific field in which 62% is good enough.

 

[basketcase]

From that graph take the most generous prediction FAR, it has the largest error envelope so using FAR is to the advantage of AWG supporters.

In FAR, 8 of the 21 actual temperatures are outside of FAR, so FAR has an accuracy of 13/21 = 62%.

The only scientific field in which 62% accuracy is considered good enough is climate science, I would argue that climate science is not science so that leaves no scientific field in which 62% is good enough.

Yet the past 3 years are smack in the middle of the projections. And if you had a clue about projections like this, they are not specific predictions about what the temperature will be at a specific time but what the overall trend will be and if the chart is updated for the next 3 years it seems to be pretty good.

 

[bishop]

Yet the past 3 years are smack in the middle of the projections. And if you had a clue about projections like this, they are not specific predictions about what the temperature will be at a specific time but what the overall trend will be and if the chart is updated for the next 3 years it seems to be pretty good.

Ok I will take your word for it that it has been accurate for the past 3 years, so now it is 16/24 = 67%

Aside from climate science what other science accepts 67% as conclusive evidence?

We can extend this further, in finance which is not a science the accepted number is 2 std deviations or 95% in order to be confident in the results. Real science demands 6 sigma like what was demanded of quantum mechanics and most recently demanded of the LHC results to confirm the Higgs field.

 

[bishop]

To address your "trend" claim. Look at that graph.

THe first 4 years was temperature was falling, the predictions did not catch that trend. Between 2001 to 2011 temperatures were stagnant, predictions did not catch that trend either. There are only about 3 or 4 points in that graph that match up to the "trend" that AWG hold so dear to. I will do you a solid and give you the last 3 years without verifying it, so now you have 6 to 7 points out of 24 points which show the "trend" you claim.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Between 2001 to 2011 temperatures were stagnant, predictions did not catch that trend either.

Indeed.

Here are the predictions from the IPCC's third assessment report in 2001:

It's hard to see any indication of one to two decades of stagnant temperatures in that chart.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Ok I will take your word for it that it has been accurate for the past 3 years, so now it is 16/24 = 67%

Don't take his word for it. What he is saying is total hogwash.

I finally understand what he's doing. We might describe it as a "Michael Mann" approach to plotting graphs, where you paste together two completely different data sets.

Basketcase is extrapolating numbers from a totally different chart and pasting them into this one.

What B.S.

NASA, NOAA and Berkeley all reported that 2014 was statistically the same as 2005 and 2010.

If you want to apply similar findings to the IPCC graph that I quoted earlier, that would put the 2014 results at 0.5 degrees Celsius, placing it at the absolute bottom of the model's predictions.

When you look at the average of the models' forecasts (which is how the IPCC makes its predictions), you find the actual temperatures are nowhere near the average.

The predictions have been spectacularly wrong and the overwhelming majority of the models have been wrong.

 

[Frankfooter]

From that graph take the most generous prediction FAR, it has the largest error envelope so using FAR is to the advantage of AWG supporters.

Ok, I'll walk you through it.
The FAR prediction was made in 1990 (as noted in the chart), since then thousands of scientists have been working on making the models better and better.
AR4 is the most recent model and you can see that their predictions are getting more and more accurate.

 

[Frankfooter]

Indeed.

Here are the predictions from the IPCC's third assessment report in 2001:

It's hard to see any indication of one to two decades of stagnant temperatures in that chart.

There hasn't been 'two decades of stagnant temperatures' in the real world, first of all.

 

[Frankfooter]

What B.S.

NASA, NOAA and Berkeley all reported that 2014 was statistically the same as 2005 and 2010.

If you want to apply similar findings to the IPCC graph that I quoted earlier, that would put the 2014 results at 0.5 degrees Celsius, placing it at the absolute bottom of the model's predictions.

Yes, its total B.S..
Your failed logic here, and attempt to claim 2014 was 0.5ºC when NASA reports it as 0.68ºC is total bullshit.
In the most pathetic way, you are just making up your own numbers to fit your claims now, its so lame and obvious I'm going to have to include this as a fourth full on lie.
You lied about the results of two census studies, lied about a chart your presented and are now trying to lie about the real world temperature.
Pathetic.

The predictions have been spectacularly wrong and the overwhelming majority of the models have been wrong.

Lets add this on as another lie.
Every chart you've presented lately has shown that the IPCC is right on the money, yet you continue to lie and claim they are wrong.

Thats five lies on one thread.

 

[bishop]

Ok, I'll walk you through it.
The FAR prediction was made in 1990 (as noted in the chart), since then thousands of scientists have been working on making the models better and better.
AR4 is the most recent model and you can see that their predictions are getting more and more accurate.

I chose FAR because it had the largest error bounds and the most data points. Now you want me to take AR4 which only has 4 predictions on the graph, of those 4 2 are out of bounds, so you have a 2/4 = 50%, now I will give you the last 3 years without verifying it so now you have 5/7= 71%.

As for trend, 4 data points does not show the correct trend as those 4 points were part of the 10 years of stagnant temperature between 2001 to 2011.

So now, 71% accuracy, is this science?

 

[Moviefan-2]

Yes, its total B.S.

The above quote is the only accurate thing you have posted all week. :thumb:

Your failed logic here, and attempt to claim 2014 was 0.5ºC when NASA reports it as 0.68ºC is total bullshit.

Really?

Every chart, including your NASA chart for 2014, showed 2014 to be no higher than 2005 or 2010 (give or take 1/100ths of a degree). The satellite data actually showed 2014 to be lower than 2010.

Try posting a data point for 2014 at the same level as 2005 and 2010 and see where it shows up.

To be honest, I expect this kind of crap from you. In your case, it is impossible to know where the dividing line is between pathological lying and blatant stupidity. I can never tell if you're dumb enough to actually believe some of the things you post.

I was genuinely surprised to see Basketcase post something like that. I had always given him more credit, even when we disagree.

 

[basketcase]

...
I was genuinely surprised to see Basketcase post something like that. I had always given him more credit, even when we disagree.

What, genuinely surprised that I pointed out how wrong your claims are? Pointing out that you have no interest in science, at least when it exposes you as off base?

Fact is your own graphs prove you wrong. Quite clearly, you have no interest in scientific validity or putting forward different hypotheses. You have simply decided what your opinion is and instead of defending it you merely seek anything that you think can undermine the views of the majority of the scientific community (even when those claims are purposely evasive and incorrect).

But keep on doing what you're doing. I enjoy arguing with people who are clearly wrong.

 

[Frankfooter]

I chose FAR because it had the largest error bounds and the most data points. Now you want me to take AR4 which only has 4 predictions on the graph, of those 4 2 are out of bounds, so you have a 2/4 = 50%, now I will give you the last 3 years without verifying it so now you have 5/7= 71%.

As for trend, 4 data points does not show the correct trend as those 4 points were part of the 10 years of stagnant temperature between 2001 to 2011.

So now, 71% accuracy, is this science?

You are complaining that a model that is designed to show trends over decades isn't accurate year by year?
What next, do you need the IPCC models to predict whether it'll rain on your street?

 

[Frankfooter]

Every chart, including your NASA chart for 2014, showed 2014 to be no higher than 2005 or 2010 (give or take 1/100ths of a degree). The satellite data actually showed 2014 to be lower than 2010.

Try posting a data point for 2014 at the same level as 2005 and 2010 and see where it shows up.
.

What is your claim, that its not warming fast enough?
That you are mad and pouty that NASA is making you look foolish again?
NASA says only 0.68ºC with their metrics.

How about we look at your favourites, NOAA?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global

Their ranking?
2015 - 0.86ºC up to now (looks like I'm winning the bet)
2014 - 0.80ºC
2010 - 0.76ºC
2012 - 0.72°C
2013 - 0.71°C
1998 - 0.67°C
2005 - 0.66°C

Those are the numbers.

Now why do you want to lie and claim that 2014 was the same as 2010 or 2005?
Why do you need to lie so often?

 

[Moviefan-2]

What, genuinely surprised that I pointed out how wrong your claims are? Pointing out that you have no interest in science, at least when it exposes you as off base?

Fact is your own graphs prove you wrong. Quite clearly, you have no interest in scientific validity or putting forward different hypotheses. You have simply decided what your opinion is and instead of defending it you merely seek anything that you think can undermine the views of the majority of the scientific community (even when those claims are purposely evasive and incorrect).

But keep on doing what you're doing. I enjoy arguing with people who are clearly wrong.

You're serious?? You genuinely didn't know that you can't take numbers from a graph and transport them to a different graph that is using a completely different set of numbers?

Seriously?

Here's a neat trick: Why don't you add the numbers for 2012 to 2014 again, and this time put them in Fahrenheit. That'll really make the temperature shoot up.

Don't ever lecture me about "the science" again. Even students in Grade 10 know that you can't take two completely different data sets and splice them together to create a phony appearance of warming.

The IPCC chart shows there has been no warming in the 21st century. And it would continue to show no warming if you added the correct numbers to the chart.

 

[bishop]

You are complaining that a model that is designed to show trends over decades isn't accurate year by year?
What next, do you need the IPCC models to predict whether it'll rain on your street?

This is the conversion I imagine I would be having with frank if I were to meet him:

Me: FAR graph accuracy sucks
Frank: Use AR4
Me: AR4 graph accuracy sucks
Frank: You gotta look at decades of predictions to see the trend
Me: That is why I used FAR, it has a bit over 2 decades of predictions. AR4 only has 7 years of predictions, not the decades you are dreaming of
Frank: You gotta use AR4 and look over decades
Me: So you are confident that AR4 after a few decades of wait will confirm AGW
Frank: Yes
Me: Are you confident in AGW now?
Frank: Yes Of course
Me: So you are telling me you have a time machine, you went decades into the future and looked at the AR4 results and came back to this time
Frank: Yes Of course, otherwise the only way to reconcile what I have said is to conclude I am retarded, and we all know I am not retarded

 

[Moviefan-2]

Just to reinforce my point from above, Basketcase and Groggy insist that when they look at the graph below, they see the temperature anomaly reading for 2005 as 0.66 degrees and 2010 as 0.67 degrees.

Is there anyone who thinks Basketcase and Groggy are right and that 2005 shows 0.66 degrees and 2010 has been plotted at the 0.67 degree mark?

Anyone??

 

[Moviefan-2]

This is the conversion I imagine I would be having with frank if I were to meet him:

Me: FAR graph accuracy sucks
Frank: Use AR4
Me: AR4 graph accuracy sucks
Frank: You gotta look at decades of predictions to see the trend
Me: That is why I used FAR, it has a bit over 2 decades of predictions. AR4 only has 7 years of predictions, not the decades you are dreaming of
Frank: You gotta use AR4 and look over decades
Me: So you are confident that AR4 after a few decades of wait will confirm AGW
Frank: Yes
Me: Are you confident in AGW now?
Frank: Yes Of course
Me: So you are telling me you have a time machine, you went decades into the future and looked at the AR4 results and came back to this time
Frank: Yes Of course, otherwise the only way to reconcile what I have said is to conclude I am retarded, and we all know I am not retarded

To be fair, Frankfooter and the other believers have set some clear criteria for measuring the impact of man-made greenhouse gases on the climate.

According to them, increases in man-made greenhouse gases will lead to the following:

-- An increase in the Earth's temperature (late 1970s to the late 1990s).
-- A decrease in the Earth's temperature (1940s to the 1970s).
-- No change to the Earth's temperature (the 21st century).

So, if you see an increase in the Earth's temperature, a decrease in the Earth's temperature, or no change to the Earth's temperature, you can be sure that anthropogenic global warming is real.

If you see any other result, you might want to question AGW. :thumb: