Blast of Global Warming in Early April

[fuji]

I would politely suggest to you that anyone can "predict" results for past events where the outcome is already known.

The fun thing is that they predicted data before it was known, both in relation to the future and the past, and did so much more successfully than your theory. That means that their theory is preferred to yours by people who base their opinions on fact.

In the rest of your post you go back to your whinging about which data points you think they got wrong, but again without mentioning that YOUR theory got even more predictions wrong. You seem to be more interested in creating the illusion of a debate than actually having one.

 

[Moviefan-2]

The fun thing is that they predicted data before it was known, both in relation to the future and the past....

No, actually, the past data that can be reliably measured were known to the climate researchers at the time they ran their models.

It isn't difficult to predict known results from the past. Anyone can do it.

In the rest of your post you go back to your whinging about which data points you think they got wrong, but again without mentioning that YOUR theory got even more predictions wrong. You seem to be more interested in creating the illusion of a debate than actually having one.

You haven't even come close to correctly quoting my views on the matter.

As for the calculation of the accuracy of the predictions, your formula doesn't quite produce the results you like to believe. In fact, the number of years where you could claim the predictions look accurate works out to 17% of the total.

For the remaining 83%, the predictions are inaccurate. That could mean different things -- it could mean the climate is too complex for the computer models. It could also very well mean that natural factors are the dominant cause of warming.

So far, the record for the 21st century is a 100% failure rate. That's why I prefer real-world bets over the bizarre calculations of odds in Fuji's Casino. :thumb:

 

[Moviefan-2]

In May, 201(5), we bet whether or not the IPCC projection of 0.2ºC was accurate....

(Y)ou fixated on the difference between 2014's temperature and the bet, which needed a record year over year increase for me to win.

It was a year-over-year increase of 0.15ºC of the 2014 anomaly from the time of the bet.

Globally-averaged temperatures in 2015 shattered the previous mark set in 2014 by 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit (0.13 Celsius).

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/...-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015/

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

The Six attempts at 'Moving the Goal Posts'

That's not NASA.

...now you're faking charts.

Yet another lie from you, claiming that's chart we bet on.

Are you expecting me to try to figure out your faulty weasel math?
Screw you, I'm not going down that rabbit hole.

It takes a certain kind of person to post something that shows himself to be a lying fool.

Now you're down to copying and pasting random ... quotes as if they had some kind of point to them.

:thumb:

I'm done.

 

[bishop]

It's a fallacy to argue that you need that level of precision to have a valid scientific theory. You're grasping at straws.

If you have two theories about a rigged roulette wheel and the best one is accurate 4% of the time and the next best is accurate 3% of the time then you have Terry theories that are both better than the null hypothesis, and you use the 4% theory try place your bets.

Or to put it in terms a statistician would, you can have statistically significant parameters in your model even though the residual is very large.

The usual interpretation of a large residual is that your parameters you have modeled are correct but you haven't yet included ALL the parameters. Further investigation should add more parameters.

In plainer English: human caused global warming is real but there are a lot more additional factors that impact climate that we haven't understood.

I do not not know your definition of "Valid Scientific Theory", english is often imprecise and lacking when talking about precise things. If a valid scientific theory to you encompasses relativity, newtonian gravity, quantum mechanics and evolution then AGW does not belong in there. If your Definition includes; string theory, many worlds theory, and we are living in a simulation, then AGW belongs there.

Science is "You have to be this tall to ride on the rollercoaster" it is not "you have to be taller than the guy next to you to ride the rollercoaster".

I do not know why you keep using the roulette wheel example, it is retarded, anyone with a brain would not place a bet yet you contend that the wise thing to do is to place a bet on the least shitty of the shittiest theories.

If AGW is proven with the same vigor as other scientific theories, then to displace AGW you would need an even better theory, in that case then it would be right to ask someone to submit a better theory in order to disprove AGW. AGW is asserted as a scientific truth/theory without the prequisite proof, as such it can be dismissed as a scientific truth/theory without prequisite proof.

Imagine if every theory needed to be proved wrong by a better theory, How did life on earth arise; by alien jizz of course unless you have a better theory to disprove it. How did the universe begin; by god of course unless you have a better theory to disprove it. This can go on and on.

 

[Frankfooter]

If AGW is proven with the same vigor as other scientific theories, then to displace AGW you would need an even better theory, in that case then it would be right to ask someone to submit a better theory in order to disprove AGW. AGW is asserted as a scientific truth/theory without the prequisite proof, as such it can be dismissed as a scientific truth/theory without prequisite proof.

And as you have shown, there is no better theory.
You haven't provided any other possible explanation, or any evidence to back it up.
That means you are operating on faith.

Even moviefan's best Dunning-Kruger effect claim that its 'natural' has been explained away here:
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

You keep claiming its not good science, but you have nothing better to replace it.

 

[Frankfooter]

:thumb:

Back to the Dunning-Kruger effect type posting, eh loser?
Must suck to have to try so hard to claim that 0.87 isn't higher then 0.83, eh?

Poor ignorant fool.

 

[bishop]

And as you have shown, there is no better theory.
You haven't provided any other possible explanation, or any evidence to back it up.
That means you are operating on faith.

Even moviefan's best Dunning-Kruger effect claim that its 'natural' has been explained away here:
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

You keep claiming its not good science, but you have nothing better to replace it.

No you dumbass, it is not faith, it is obvious that there are many more wrong theories than correct theories. This is why the burden is on proving a theory to be correct to a scientific standard rather than disproving a theory is correct.

Your mentality is the exact same mentality that religious people use to defend god, if science can not disprove that god created the universe then by default god made the universe. Come on, you do not even see the hypocrisy and irony of you using dunning-kruger because you are the poster child for dunning-kruger.

 

[Frankfooter]

No you dumbass, it is not faith, it is obvious that there are many more wrong theories than correct theories. This is why the burden is on proving a theory to be correct to a scientific standard rather than disproving a theory is correct.

Your mentality is the exact same mentality that religious people use to defend god, if science can not disprove that god created the universe then by default god made the universe. Come on, you do not even see the hypocrisy and irony of you using dunning-kruger because you are the poster child for dunning-kruger.

Sorry, bishop, but there is lots of great research available.
http://www.ipcc.ch/

They've looked at all the options, so much to the point that even while you keep claiming there must be another theory, you can't find one that hasn't been investigated and found wanting. Which means you have no evidence to support your claim, you are just stating based on your 'faith' that the massive body of research and massive consensus is all wrong. I know the difference and its quite obvious, every time one of you faith based 'deniers' raises a point I can look at the research, check the data and the competing views and come back with answers and research to back it up.

But you can't, can you?

You just have this 'belief' that all of science is wrong.

 

[fuji]

So far, the record for the 21st century is a 100% failure rate. That's why I prefer real-world bets over the bizarre calculations of odds in Fuji's Casino. :thumb:

Not when calculated properly. What statisticians actually look at are the residuals, so your statement isn't even meaningful. You have abdicated the true debate here, you aren't even trying to propose a better theory because you know there isn't one.

 

[fuji]

I do not not know your definition of "Valid Scientific Theory", english is often imprecise and lacking when talking about precise things. If a valid scientific theory to you encompasses relativity, newtonian gravity, quantum mechanics and evolution then AGW does not belong in there. If your Definition includes; string theory, many worlds theory, and we are living in a simulation, then AGW belongs there.

Science is "You have to be this tall to ride on the rollercoaster" it is not "you have to be taller than the guy next to you to ride the rollercoaster".

I do not know why you keep using the roulette wheel example, it is retarded, anyone with a brain would not place a bet yet you contend that the wise thing to do is to place a bet on the least shitty of the shittiest theories.

If AGW is proven with the same vigor as other scientific theories, then to displace AGW you would need an even better theory, in that case then it would be right to ask someone to submit a better theory in order to disprove AGW. AGW is asserted as a scientific truth/theory without the prequisite proof, as such it can be dismissed as a scientific truth/theory without prequisite proof.

Imagine if every theory needed to be proved wrong by a better theory, How did life on earth arise; by alien jizz of course unless you have a better theory to disprove it. How did the universe begin; by god of course unless you have a better theory to disprove it. This can go on and on.

^^^^^ more nonsense claiming that it isn't science unless it's accurate to six decimal points. That's just false.

 

[bishop]

Sorry, bishop, but there is lots of great research available.
http://www.ipcc.ch/

They've looked at all the options, so much to the point that even while you keep claiming there must be another theory, you can't find one that hasn't been investigated and found wanting. Which means you have no evidence to support your claim, you are just stating based on your 'faith' that the massive body of research and massive consensus is all wrong. I know the difference and its quite obvious, every time one of you faith based 'deniers' raises a point I can look at the research, check the data and the competing views and come back with answers and research to back it up.

But you can't, can you?

You just have this 'belief' that all of science is wrong.

When have I ever advanced another theory? Why do you keep putting up these strawmen arguments?

 

[Moviefan-2]

You have abdicated the true debate here, you aren't even trying to propose a better theory because you know there isn't one.

You really haven't been paying attention.

 

[Moviefan-2]

In May, 201(5), we bet whether or not the IPCC projection of 0.2ºC was accurate....

(Y)ou fixated on the difference between 2014's temperature and the bet, which needed a record year over year increase for me to win.

It was a year-over-year increase of 0.15ºC of the 2014 anomaly from the time of the bet.

Globally-averaged temperatures in 2015 shattered the previous mark set in 2014 by 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit (0.13 Celsius).

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/...-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015/

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

The Six attempts at 'Moving the Goal Posts'

That's not NASA.

...now you're faking charts.

Yet another lie from you, claiming that's chart we bet on.

Are you expecting me to try to figure out your faulty weasel math?
Screw you, I'm not going down that rabbit hole.

It takes a certain kind of person to post something that shows himself to be a lying fool.

Now you're down to copying and pasting random ... quotes as if they had some kind of point to them.

:thumb:

Poor ignorant fool.

 

[fuji]

You really haven't been paying attention.

Sure I have. You are like a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, pointing at the pinholes in the standard theory while glossing over the massive impact crater in your own.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Sure I have. You are like a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, pointing at the pinholes in the standard theory while glossing over the massive impact crater in your own.

You're just doing spin.

The reality is the predictions of unprecedented warming proved to be spectacularly wrong. In reality, nothing unusual has happened and there is no unexplained problem that requires an alternate hypothesis.

 

[Frankfooter]

When have I ever advanced another theory? Why do you keep putting up these strawmen arguments?

Exactly, so you think that all the science is wrong and have no alternate theory to explain why its wrong.
In other words, you are acting only on your 'faith' that science is wrong, since you have no evidence.

You are acting on 'faith'.

 

[Frankfooter]

The reality is the predictions of unprecedented warming proved to be spectacularly wrong. In reality, nothing unusual has happened and there is no unexplained problem that requires an alternate hypothesis.

Now you are just out and out lying.

February 2016 hit the 2ºC anomaly from pre-industrial temperatures (using the 1750-1850 baseline).
To call that 'nothing unusual' just confirms that you are denying reality.
Just as you continue to deny that 0.87 is more then 0.83, you deny that a 2ºC change in the global temperature of the planet is 'unusual'.
Totally idiotic, more incompetent reasoning from our resident Dunning-Kruger numbskull.

 

[Moviefan-2]

In May, 201(5), we bet whether or not the IPCC projection of 0.2ºC was accurate....

(Y)ou fixated on the difference between 2014's temperature and the bet, which needed a record year over year increase for me to win.

It was a year-over-year increase of 0.15ºC of the 2014 anomaly from the time of the bet.

Globally-averaged temperatures in 2015 shattered the previous mark set in 2014 by 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit (0.13 Celsius).

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/...-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015/

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

The Six attempts at 'Moving the Goal Posts'

That's not NASA.

...now you're faking charts.

Yet another lie from you, claiming that's chart we bet on.

Are you expecting me to try to figure out your faulty weasel math?
Screw you, I'm not going down that rabbit hole.

It takes a certain kind of person to post something that shows himself to be a lying fool.

Now you're down to copying and pasting random ... quotes as if they had some kind of point to them.

:thumb:

I'm done.

 

[Moviefan-2]

February 2016 hit the 2ºC anomaly from pre-industrial temperatures (using the 1750-1850 baseline).

You probably didn't know this, but modern record keeping of the Earth's temperature only goes back to 1880. A "1750-1850" baseline pre-dates 1880.

Furthermore, even if February 2016 was 2ºC warmer than the average February temperature from 200 years ago, so what? That doesn't prove that something unusual or unprecedented has occurred.

The planet has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age.

 

[Frankfooter]

Furthermore, even if February 2016 was 2ºC warmer than the average February temperature from 200 years ago, so what? That doesn't prove that something unusual or unprecedented has occurred.

You really have no clue, do you?
You lied about the Fyfe study, lied about the bet and now you all you can do is say 2ºC in global temperature change is its 'nothing unusual'.
Totally clueless.

Why do you even bother to post? You've nothing useful to add to this thread other then Dunning-Kruger effect personal opinions that only you hold highly.