415000 years of temperature change.....true or false?

[Moviefan-2]

Nonsense. Try plotting the HadCRUT4 you posted or since you want the more up to data the HadCRUT4.4.0 data on the graph that you originally provided.

Oh, I forgot, you don't understand how to.

Fortunately, Gavin Schmidt has already plotted the current data against the current CMIP5 run of the models.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIRz_2PVEAAf8QX.jpg:large

His graph confirms the observed data are nowhere near the average of the CMIP5 models. Confirming -- yet again -- that the predictions have been spectacularly wrong.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Obviously IPCC and AGW believers need it explained,...along with a couple of AGW supporters here.

FAST

I can't believe that Basketcase, the two self-proclaimed expert on "the science," is ducking the question.

It's actually quite easy to determine the answer -- not that I'm convinced that he'll figure it out.

 

[FAST]

http://climate.nasa.gov/system/resources/detail_files/125_3-sea-level-rise-infographic-full.jpg

These losers are really unbelievable,...they are continually screaming like frightened women, about how the oceans levels are rising,...

As their own graph shows,...it has been rising at consistent rate since 1870,...but now it must be stopped,...???

And using phrases like "crystal ball" to describe how they determine what is going happen in the future,...they would have more credibility making a movie with a Delorean

And this bunch wants to be taken seriously,...give me a fricken break,...pull the plug on these leaches.

Also,...would SOMEBODY please explain margin of error to them,...

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

And the predictions were based on the average.

No, the projections were made with a range and a mean was calculated to put a centre line on the projections.
That centre line is the mean of the average of all projections, its not 'the prediction', its a guideline.

The projections are the grey area in the graph.
And the real world measurements fit within the projections, with 2015 just about landing right on your 'mean' line.

 

[Frankfooter]

Fortunately, Gavin Schmidt has already plotted the current data against the current CMIP5 run of the models.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIRz_2PVEAAf8QX.jpg:large

His graph confirms the observed data are nowhere near the average of the CMIP5 models. Confirming -- yet again -- that the predictions have been spectacularly wrong.

His chart still doesn't have 2015 included, as the guardian article and chart did.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...-right-in-line-with-climate-model-predictions

But on Schmidt's twitter account is also this picture, comparing Hansen's 1981 projections with reality.

I'd challenge you to find a denier who made a projection that is anywhere near that accurate

 

[Frankfooter]

http://climate.nasa.gov/system/resources/detail_files/125_3-sea-level-rise-infographic-full.jpg

These losers are really unbelievable,...they are continually screaming like frightened women, about how the oceans levels are rising,...

Sounds like an opportunity for someone of your vast knowledge to invest in some Florida keys property, you can show those people how wrong their projections are by buying while everyone else thinks it'll be underwater soon.

Go for it, put your money where your mouth is.

(but not like moviefan, who is losing our bet and continually whining about it, since the chances of 2015 being a record warm year are now 87%)

 

[Moviefan-2]

His chart still doesn't have 2015 included, as the guardian article and chart did.

Big deal. Even with the current anomaly for 2015 added, the temperatures are still well below the average.

When it comes to the surface temperature measurements, the Guardian's graph shows the same thing as the graph that ran last year in the National Post. The anomalies are nowhere near the CMIP5 average, confirming the predictions have been spectacularly wrong.

...but not like moviefan, who is losing our bet and continually whining about it....

You really are a total loon. :hippie:

I have no idea where "continually whining" came from. The only one who keeps talking about it is you.

 

[Frankfooter]

Big deal. Even with the current anomaly for 2015 added, the temperatures are still well below the average.

When it comes to the surface temperature measurements, the Guardian's graph shows the same thing as the graph that ran last year in the National Post. The anomalies are nowhere near the CMIP5 average, confirming the predictions have been spectacularly wrong.

I would like to confirm one more time that you read the chart in the Guardian article.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...-right-in-line-with-climate-model-predictions

And I will ask you a basic question (like whether 0.68 is higher then 0.67, which you failed).

Is the dark blue line (HadCRUT) on the grey bar?

 

[Moviefan-2]

The only question that matters is whether the temperature anomalies match the solid black line, which is the CMIP5 average.

They don't. They're nowhere near that solid black line.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIRz_2PVEAAf8QX.jpg:large

That means the predictions were spectacularly wrong.

 

[Frankfooter]

The only question that matters is whether the temperature anomalies match the solid black line, which is the CMIP5 average.
.

No, because that's not what the IPCC sets as projections from their models.
They output a range, not 'an average'.

It just means that you are spectacularly wrong to claim the average is the projection.

 

[basketcase]

I'm afraid the difference between the two numbers is well outside the margin of error -...

Why don't you look at the margins in the projections you posted. The AR4 model in it has the smallest margin (as it was the more recent) and it's margin goes from around 0.55 to about 0.85 for 2015 and slightly lower for the two preceding years.

You posted this graph as 'proof'.
http://www.science-skeptical.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Entwurf3.jpg
So tell me again how the actual measured HadCRUT4 values you posted don't fit it?

 

[basketcase]

Fortunately, Gavin Schmidt has already plotted the current data against the current CMIP5 run of the models.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIRz_2PVEAAf8QX.jpg:large

His graph confirms the observed data are nowhere near the average of the CMIP5 models. Confirming -- yet again -- that the predictions have been spectacularly wrong.

Um, you have some severe issues with reading graphs.

Let me ask a simple question. What do you think the grey in the graph represents?

I'll give you a hint, it starts with an 'M' and rhymes with "Gargins of error". The graph itself calls it the "Spread" of the models.


I won't even begin to discuss how humorous it is that you quote after you called him a liar.

 

[basketcase]

Also from Gavin Schmidt

Chance of a record warm year in the 2015 GISTEMP index have increased to 87%.
https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/643474850900742144/photo/1

 

[Moviefan-2]

It just means that you are spectacularly wrong to claim the average is the projection.

No, it means that I have actually read the IPCC's predictions. The predictions were based on the average of the models.

For example, let's look at Page 7 of the Summary for Policy Makers from the IPCC's AR4 report from 2007. Specifically, the following sentence from the top right column of the page:

"For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emissions scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all GHGs and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected. Afterwards, temperature projections increasingly depend on specific emissions scenarios."

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

You see - the IPCC made a prediction based on a range of emissions scenarios. In fact, there has been a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions in the time period being discussed.

The predictions such as the one quoted above are based on the average of the models.

And those predictions have been spectacularly wrong.

 

[Moviefan-2]

I'll give you a hint, it starts with an 'M' and rhymes with "Gargins of error".

No, it isn't. You don't know what you're talking about.

The grey area is the full range of model projections, not the margin of error. Unfortunately for you, the test for AGW is how the observed data compare with the average of the CMIP5 run. You can see for yourself that the observed data -- even in this El Nino year -- fall far short of the average, exactly as I have been telling you all along.

The predictions have been spectacularly wrong.

Meanwhile, we're still waiting to hear your final word on the HadCRUT reported anomaly for 2015 (so far). Is it 0.68 or 0.809?

We know Frankfooter's response but you keep evading the question.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Your double standards for margins of errors is becoming full on comedy:
1) you accuse NASA of lying for noting the margin of error yet also still noting that 0.68 is bigger then 0.67
2) you look at a chart that includes the margin of error in a big, fat grey bar and claim that margin of error isn't relevant.

Pure comedy gold.

One time its 'lying' to ignore a margin of error and the second time you yourself ignore a margin of error.

Comedy gold.
idiot.

????

Maybe Franky's been hitting the sauce again, but the quote above makes absolutely no sense.

For example, the big, fat grey bar has nothing whatsoever to do with the margin of error. The fact that both Franky and Basketcase got this wrong reaffirms my statement that they don't actually know what a margin of error is.

The grey bar is the range of model projections. The margin of error for a data point is the estimated range of imprecision for any particular data reading. They're two completely different things.

The reality is this:

As was confirmed on Page 7 of the AR4 Summary for Policy Makers report from 2007, the IPCC made predictions based on the average of the model runs. And those predictions have been spectacularly wrong.

Every graph -- including the one in the Guardian -- confirms that the observed temperature anomalies are nowhere near the CMIP5 average that was used for the predictions.

 

[K Douglas]

Also from Gavin Schmidt

Chance of a record warm year in the 2015 GISTEMP index have increased to 87%.
https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/643474850900742144/photo/1

Gavin Schmidt that reputable and honest resource on climate change? Haha. Won't even debate Roy Spencer. What a chicken shit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYKggC5VOzA

 

[Moviefan-2]

You mean where it says this?


Thanks for confirming you are an idiot.

You can't even bluff with any dignity.

You have no idea what any of that means. I can assure you that it has nothing to do with your fairy-tale claim that the grey bar represents a margin of error.

The facts are:

-- The IPCC made predictions based on the average of the model runs -- for example, the 2007 prediction that temperatures would warm by about 0.2 degrees C per decade (Page 7: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf).

-- The observed temperature anomalies are nowhere near the average of the CMIP5 run.

The observed data confirm that the predictions were spectacularly wrong.

(By the way, the HadCRUT.4.4.0.0 anomaly for 2015 -- so far -- is 0.68 degrees C. The global temperature anomalies are the numbers in the left-hand column in your table. :thumb

 

[Moviefan-2]

Running away,...AGAIN footer,...which you always do when you don't have any thing honest to say in reply,...but we are ALL used to that by now.

FAST

He certainly can't maintain any consistent replies. In various posts, he has claimed:

-- The IPCC's predictions were "spectacularly right."

-- Updated graphs would show the IPCC's predictions were right on the money.

-- The IPCC never made any predictions (https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...rue-or-false&p=5347436&viewfull=1#post5347436).

It's hard to imagine how updated graphs would show the IPCC's predictions were "spectacularly right" if the IPCC never actually made any predictions, as per his latest claims. :biggrin1:

 

[Moviefan-2]

The IPCC makes 'projections', with a range, or margin of error.
Their projections have been really quite accurate, as shown by the chart in the Guardian article, in which the real world results are shown to fall well within their projection range.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...-right-in-line-with-climate-model-predictions

Sadly, you are either too dishonest or too stupid to admit that the chart shows them to be right, with 2015 looking to fall 'right on the money' or about on the average of their projections you like to claim as their only 'prediction'.

Yes or no: Did the IPCC make predictions based on the average of the models?

Answer.