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

[Frankfooter]

By contrast, Frankfooter likes to post graphs that show microscopic changes in the temperature in the 21st century -- but his graphs don't show you how the temperatures compare with the predictions.

His NASA graph, for example, only shows temperature changes. It doesn't show how the observed data compare with the predictions, which is the true test of the AGW hypothesis.

Here you go, my only issue has been finding a recent chart, this is a couple of years ago and the last couple of years make the IPCC projections look conservative (which they are).

Oh, and by the way, this is the legit chart from AR5, not the leaked prerelease chart you like to post. This is the one you should use.

vs NASA's latest temp readings:

Put them together and you have to admit that the IPCC is really quite spectacularly correct, as you are want to say.
Or as the Independent reported:

IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think
Global warming since 1990 has fallen within the range of IPCC climate model projections

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...t/01/ipcc-global-warming-projections-accurate

 

[Moviefan-2]

Oh, and by the way, this is the legit chart from AR5, not the leaked prerelease chart you like to post. This is the one you should use.

I posted that graph. If you had actually opened my link, I posted both of them.

http://skepticalscience.com//pics/DvDFmodel-data.png

And it does not show the IPCC getting it right.

In Chapter 9 of the same report, the IPCC reported that the graph shows 111 of the 114 models got it wrong. That's a 97 per cent failure rate. The observed data are also nowhere near the average of the projections. Your graph doesn't even show the average that the IPCC used for its predictions.

What your graph does confirm is the IPCC got it spectacularly wrong.

Keep looking.

 

[Frankfooter]

I posted that graph. If you had actually opened my link, I posted both of them.

http://skepticalscience.com//pics/DvDFmodel-data.png
.

Why don't you start by posting the correct chart only, not the leaked chart?

Then, why don't you try adding 0.83ºC for 2015 and then tell me how accurate it is?

 

[Moviefan-2]

Then, why don't you try adding 0.83ºC for 2015 and then tell me how accurate it is?

Wrong again.

The HadCRUT number so far for 2015 is 0.68 degrees Celsius. Still nowhere near the IPCC's predictions.

As I said in the other thread, I challenged to post an actual graph that compares the IPCC's predictions with the observed data. Not post a graph and then insert numbers from a completely different data base.

So far, the graphs all confirm the IPCC got it spectacularly wrong.

 

[Frankfooter]

Wrong again.

The HadCRUT number so far for 2015 is 0.68 degrees Celsius. Still nowhere near the IPCC's predictions.

Nope, we are talking NASA/NOAA numbers here, not the HadCRUT numbers that use a different baseline.

We might get a bet, once you agree to use one chart for recording the results.

For example, your NASA chart that shows 1995 at 0.43 degrees Celsius put 2014 at 0.68 degrees in 2014: http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

If that's the chart you're saying will hit 0.83 at the end of 2015, we definitely have a bet.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Nope, we are talking NASA/NOAA numbers here, not the HadCRUT numbers that use a different baseline.

Wrong again.

Try reading pages 768 and 769 of Chapter 9 of the IPCC's AR5 report. It is the HadCRUT data that use the same baseline as your graph.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

Furthermore, the challenge is for you to produce an actual graph that supports the IPCC's predictions -- not to post a graph and then insert numbers from a completely different data set.

So far, you have failed.

 

[Frankfooter]

Furthermore, the challenge is for you to produce an actual graph that supports the IPCC's predictions -- not to post a graph and then insert numbers from a completely different data set.

So far, you have failed.

Ok, on your terms here is the final word.
HadCRUT 4 for 2015 = 0.684ºC

Data available here:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4-gl.dat

Enter that dot on this chart from AR5, direct link to the IPCC chart.

That gives you a dot that is smack dab in the middle of the projections.
End of debate.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Sorry, Groggy.

You have failed to produce an actual graph that shows the observed data aligning with the IPCC's predictions.

Since you say it's "end of debate," then we'll accept that you couldn't do it.

 

[Frankfooter]

Sorry, Frank.

You have failed to produce an actual graph that shows the observed data aligning with the IPCC's predictions.

Since you say it's "end of debate," then we'll accept that you couldn't do it.

Here is the most recent chart and the most recent data.
That's as legit and recent as you get.


Ok, on your terms here is the final word.
HadCRUT 4 for 2015 = 0.684ºC

Data available here:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4-gl.dat

Enter that dot on this chart from AR5, direct link to the IPCC chart.

That gives you a dot that is smack dab in the middle of the projections.
End of debate.

 

[SkyRider]

Poor McKinley was assassinated too. WTF?

Will President Obama (a Democrat) change Ronald Reagan (a Republican) National Airport to the William Jefferson Clinton (a Democrat) National Airport? http://metwashairports.com/reagan/reagan.htm

P.S. This climate change thread is getting really long in the tooth.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Here is the most recent chart and the most recent data.
That's as legit and recent as you get.

Nonsense. That graph only goes to the end of 2012.

I have produced graphs that go to 2014. They both show -- as does your IPCC graph to 2012 -- that the IPCC's predictions were spectacularly wrong.

Furthermore, every updated graph that I have seen puts the CMIP5 average at about 0.85 degrees C. The 0.68 degrees C temperature (so far) for this El Nino year is nowhere near that, and the NASA and NOAA numbers don't apply because they use an entirely different baseline.

You have failed to produce an actual graph that shows the IPCC getting it right.

 

[Frankfooter]

Nonsense. That graph only goes to the end of 2012.

I have produced graphs that go to 2014.

The charts you produced were bullshit.
The most recent and most legit chart is the AR5 chart I've linked to, as is the most recent HadCRUT4 data I've used.
Deal with it.

 

[Moviefan-2]

The charts you produced were bullshit.
The most recent and most legit chart is the AR5 chart I've linked to, as is the most recent HadCRUT4 data I've used.
Deal with it.

I'm not interested in your fairy-tale analysis.

If you want to stick with the graph that goes to the end of 2012, suit yourself. It shows the IPCC's predictions were spectacularly wrong.

If you want to discuss more recent graphs, produce one.

 

[Frankfooter]

I'm not interested in your fairy-tale analysis.
.

This is the most recent, most legit chart and the most recent and most legit data (though NASA/NOAA data also fits that description).
You are a fool to call that a 'fairy-tale'.


Ok, on your terms here is the final word.
HadCRUT 4 for 2015 = 0.684ºC

Data available here:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4-gl.dat

Enter that dot on this chart from AR5, direct link to the IPCC chart.

That gives you a dot that is smack dab in the middle of the projections.
End of debate.

 

[basketcase]

Wrong again.

The HadCRUT number so far for 2015 is 0.68 degrees Celsius. ....

Nice to see you have finally admitted that number. Of course if you plot 0.68 on the predictions graph, lo and behold, in the middle of the projection.

I'm still waiting for you to address why you posted a survey but then claimed it is meaningless when it showed only 9% of the experts support your claims. It's just like you posted that prediction graph then ran away when it turned out that the observed data fits well withing the range of projections (of course now you are pretending that plotting the actual data on that graph can't be done).


And just a reminder, the survey you posted shows only 9% of the experts support your view.

 

[basketcase]

I assume this means you're conceding that you can't find any data that support your "experts."

You mean besides the actual data that you keep finding excuses to ignore?

 

[basketcase]

Post 854

I wouldn't cite a graph by Anthony Watts. ....

Post 855

"Spin"?

Here are a variety of graphs comparing the predictions with the observed data:
... https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/michaels-102-ipcc-models-vs-reality.jpg....

That's my laugh for the day.

 

[basketcase]

I don't want to start a new thread so I'll post it here. Speaking of presidents, President Obama (a Democrat) wants to remove President McKinley's (a Republican) name from Mount McKinley.

Wasn't that done on the Daily Show?

 

[basketcase]

I posted that graph. If you had actually opened my link, I posted both of them.

http://skepticalscience.com//pics/DvDFmodel-data.png
...

Speaking of credible sites, skeptical science?

 

[Frankfooter]

Speaking of credible sites, skeptical science?

Skeptical science is a good source, contains links to original reports and data. Its legit.

However, you should include this as your second laugh of the day (and thanks for catching the same laugh I already posted about, it bears repeating).
The skepticalscience article that the chart is from is an article explaining how the chart is a leaked pre-release of a IPCC chart and explains that using it is dishonest.
That's moviefan's source for the chart he links to as legit and honest.
stuuuupid.