Considering that I was the person who first mentioned the fact -- more than a year ago -- that less than two per cent of the models got it right, it's hardly news (or, that only three per cent of the models got it right, if you want to use the IPCC's calculations.)There you go. That wasn't too hard was it?
I guess we can end the thread now.
You are NOT trying to understand,...but are trying avoid the obvious,...as usual.I'm still trying to understand what your claim is.
You now think that the oceans are rising as a result of climate change and there is no way to stop it?
Which means you accept that anthropogenic climate change is occurring and is drastically changing the planet.
Correct?
That you now admitted is wrong. You finally admitted the data meets the projections within the 80% confidence represented by the grey on your graph.Considering that I was the person who first mentioned the fact....
What? One minute, you were gloating after I posted that a few of the models got it right. Now, you're saying I was wrong. Make up your mind.That you now admitted is wrong.
Does the data fit within the 80% confidence on the graph you posted?What? One minute, you were gloating after I posted that a few of the models got it right. Now, you're saying I was wrong. Make up your mind.
Meanwhile, let me repeat:
The IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly wrong. I not only say it, I've been willing to bet on it.
And I'm happy to settle up with Franky any time he likes.
Not at all.The fact that you still continue with the 'spectacularly wrong' mantra is making you look sad.
This is what you should repeat.What? One minute, you were gloating after I posted that a few of the models got it right. Now, you're saying I was wrong. Make up your mind.
Meanwhile, let me repeat:
The temperature anomalies fit within the range of the models.
Prove it. Let's settle the bet and see just how accurate the IPCC's predictions have been.This is an admission that the IPCC projections are accurate.
NASA says 0.84ºC to date, NOAA's averages are right now 0.82ºC to date and the bet is smack dab in the middle at 0.83ºCProve it. Let's settle the bet and see just how accurate the IPCC's predictions have been.
If that's what you believe NASA's numbers show, then you should have no reservations about settling the bet.NASA says 0.84ºC to date....
I had the numbers reversed, was going off of memory.If that's what you believe NASA's numbers show, then you should have no reservations about settling the bet.
So let's settle up. Agreed?
The temperature anomalies fit within the range of the models.
This is all the confirmation we need that the IPCC's predictions are wrong.I say we wait until the full term for the bet.
Amazing. You admit that the observed temperatures fit withing the 80% certainty margin yet still say they are wrong. Absolutely amazing.Not at all.
I not only say the IPCC's predictions were spectacularly wrong, I was willing to bet on it. And I'm willing to settle up any time Franky likes.
What I admitted was that most of the temperature anomalies fell within the bottom of the enormous range of projections (a few of the anomalies plotted by Gavin Schmidt were completely below all of the projections).Amazing. You admit that the observed temperatures fit withing the 80% certainty margin yet still say they are wrong. Absolutely amazing.
Thank you. The measure temperatures fit within the projections. End of story.What I admitted was that most of the temperature anomalies fell within the bottom of the enormous range of projections ....
That's definitely true. There were a few models that correctly predicted that significant increases in man-made greenhouse gases wouldn't lead to any warming.Thank you. The measure temperatures fit within the projections. End of story.
Realizing that your own source on the projections refutes your claims, you're changing your argument again.Ultimately, the debate isn't about whether or not a small percentage of the model runs made correct projections. The debate is whether there is any evidence of anthropogenic global warming.
....
Nonsense. My argument remains the exact same.Realizing that your own source on the projections refutes your claims, you're changing your argument again.
"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t." - Kevin Trenberth email to Michael Mann et al, Oct. 12, 2009.Seems the scientific community at large disagrees with you.
