16 Democrat AGs Begin Inquisition Against ‘Climate Change Disbelievers’

[Moviefan-2]

I find it interesting from a psychological level how you look at a graph where all the data points are well within the predicted range but claim it is 'spectacularly wrong'.

Don't take my word for it. Here are Frankfooter's "updated" numbers for the IPCC's predictions (using the same baseline for calculating the temperature anomalies):

- IPCC prediction for 2015: 0.85ºC

- 2015 anomaly on the "updated" IPCC graph: 0.75ºC

And that was in a super El Nino year.

The IPCC's predictions remain consistently and spectacularly wrong.

(And since you think you're so clever and that I'm just stubborn, you can look forward to a new thread this weekend where we'll examine your predictions. It will be a lot of fun. :eyebrows

 

[Moviefan-2]

Funny how you can't read a chart and can't read your own numbers now.

I don't believe it -- you actually think the black dot for 2015 on your "updated" IPCC graph is at the 0.87ºC level?

The global temperature series shows that 2015 was 0.75 ±0.1 °C above the long-term (1961-1990) average, a record since at least 1850.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2016/2015-global-temperature

You really are a total retard.

 

[Frankfooter]

Don't take my word for it. Here are Frankfooter's "updated" numbers for the IPCC's predictions (using the same baseline for calculating the temperature anomalies):

- IPCC prediction for 2015: 0.85ºC

- 2015 anomaly on the "updated" IPCC graph: 0.75ºC

Different baselines, idiot.
You continue to make incredibly basic mistakes.

 

[Frankfooter]

I don't believe it -- you actually think the black dot for 2015 on your "updated" IPCC graph is at the 0.87ºC level?

You really are a total retard.

Different baseline, idiot.
That chart shows the IPCC projections are right on the money, using a 1960-1990 baseline, as it states on the fucking chart.

The bet we made used the NASA baselines, uses 1951-1980 as their baseline.
http://climate.nasa.gov/

Amazing you are still making such incredibly basic mistakes after a year of this.
Did you google Dunning-Kruger effect yet?

 

[fuji]

My prediction?

Your hypothesis is that there is no human caused global warming. Not only has that hypothesis failed to predict the data, that hypothesis has been rejected by the data.

 

[fuji]

Bullshit.

There is no metric or standard for the falsification of the man-made global warming hypothesis.

All data is somehow interpreted by the climate enforcers to support the hypothesis -- for example, even when the models show a 97% failure rate (IPCC's AR5 report in 2013).

Furthermore, your argument about an alternate hypothesis assumes there is something unusual that has occurred that needs to be explained. In fact, nothing unusual has occurred that requires any hypothesis.

You literally have no clue. You have no understanding of methods used. You just want to continue cherry picking years and abstractly denouncing "models" but without any real understanding.

You can keep debating with Frankfooter, who is just as ignorant of the methods as you are. The two of you can continue to stupidly trade analogies as if that were debate. Maybe it makes you feel good.

But it isn't debate, and when it comes to the actual debate the science proceeds through predictions of regressors on empirical data. Your hypothesis says that greenhouse gases DO NOT cause global warming and predicts that regressors on greenhouse gases should not be significantly different from zero. But that prediction is proven wrong--those regressors do differ significantly from zero. That rejects your hypothesis.

The regressors used to predict global warming come with very large residuals, but that doesn't reject the human causation hypothesis. It just means that it isn't making very accurate predictions, but its predictions are still significantly better than the null hypothesis you advocate, which is actually rejected by the data.

You are just wrong and trying to make yourself feel smart by debating with lightweights on irrelevant points.

 

[basketcase]

Don't take my word for it....

I don't have to. The graph you kept posting speaks against your claims.

 

[Moviefan-2]

I don't have to. The graph you kept posting speaks against your claims.

You're no better than Frankfooter when it comes to reading graphs.

 

[Moviefan-2]

It just means that it isn't making very accurate predictions....

That's an understatement. In its 2013 AR5 report, the IPCC said only three out of 114 model runs correctly predicted future temperatures. That's a 97% failure rate.

And the "updated" graph that Frankfooter posted shows things haven't gotten any better.

Quite frankly, you're copying and pasting things you don't really understand.

Has the Earth's temperature warmed over the past 135 years? Yes, slightly. By the looks of things, the Earth's temperature has been increasing at about the same pace for about the past 350 years. No one disputes the temperature has increased about 1ºC over the past 135 years.

Is there evidence that the dominant cause of warming since 1950 was caused by man-made emissions? No. The trend line remains the same and the predictions about how increased emissions would have affect temperatures have been spectacularly wrong.

Computer model simulations are not evidence. The predictions are not supported by the real-world data.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Different baselines, idiot.

Different baseline, idiot.

Same baseline, moron.

Both the 0.85ºC prediction and the 0.75ºC anomaly in 2015 are based on the Met Office's HadCRUT4.4 data that uses a 1960-1990 baseline.

I'm well aware of the fact that NASA uses a different baseline. That's why the number that you must use to compare the 2015 anomaly to the 0.85ºC prediction is the HadCRUT4 anomaly of 0.75ºC -- the one that appears on your "updated" IPCC graph.

In fact, the footnote underneath your graph confirms that the correct numbers are the HadCRUT4.4 data that use the 1960-1990 baseline:

Updated version of IPCC AR5 Fig. 1.4 showing a comparison of global temperature projections from previous Assessment Reports (FAR, SAR, TAR & AR4) with subsequent observations. Added are the 2013-2015 global temperatures from HadCRUT4.4 with black squares.

 

[fuji]

Computer model simulations are not evidence. The predictions are not supported by the real-world data.

Wrong.

Again, it's a fact that the hypothesis that humans haven't caused global warming has been rejected. That hypothesis, your hypothesis, predicts that regressors associated with greenhouse gas should not differ significantly from zero. But they do differ significantly from zero.

Your claim human caused global warming can be discounted because the resulting models don't make very accurate predictions is just mindlessly wrong. You utterly fail at understanding science and how it works.

Let me give you an analogy: We are at a bus stop, debating whether the bus is running. You predict that the bus isn't running at all today. I say it is and predict a bus will be along within fifteen minutes. The bus is eventually observed an hour later.

Your hypothesis was rejected completely by that observation. My hypothesis was confirmed but my prediction was very inaccurate. I was right about the bus running, but unable to correctly predict its arrival.

In the global warming debate the claim that humans don't cause global warming has been thoroughly rejected by the data. We know for a fact that greenhouse gas emissions cause global warming. That is true regardless of how inaccurate predicted temperature changes have been.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Although I completely reject his characterization of my knowledge of this issue, I do sympathize with Fuji on one point.

The believers in man-made global warming can't be too happy to have Frankfooter on their side. His total ignorance of everything -- from the meaning of the word "data" to how to read a graph at a Grade 9 level -- is a never-ending gift to the skeptics.

I would rather debate the merits of the issue with someone who can read graphs properly without creating fairy tales by mixing and matching different data sets. But if Franky's going to be the spokesman for the AGW crowd, so be it.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Let me give you an analogy: We are at a bus stop, debating whether the bus is running. You predict that the bus isn't running at all today. I say it is and predict a bus will be along within fifteen minutes. The bus is eventually observed an hour later.

The Grand Canyon-sized problem with your analogy is it assumes there were never any changes in the Earth's temperature prior to the Industrial Revolution.

Here's a better description of the analogy.

You say that Santa Claus has been driving a bus through our neighbourhood. I say there is no evidence to support the existence of Santa Claus.

Suddenly, we see a bus passing along a nearby street.

You insist that proves the existence of Santa Claus. By contrast, I would argue it only proves the existence of buses.

No one disputes there has been slight warming over the past 135 years. What is completely missing is any evidence of anything anthropogenic.

 

[fuji]

The Grand Canyon-sized problem with your analogy is it assumes there were never any changes in the Earth's temperature prior to the Industrial Revolution.

Nope. No such assumption is made.

 

[Frankfooter]

You could have tried opening the links. The baseline used in your graphs was the average of the temperature anomalies from 1961 to 1990.

Let's review your numbers again, using the same baseline:

- IPCC prediction for 2015: 0.85ºC

- 2015 anomaly on the "updated" IPCC graph: 0.75ºC

And that was in a super El Nino year.

The IPCC's predictions remain consistently and spectacularly wrong.

Don't take my word for it. Here are Frankfooter's "updated" numbers for the IPCC's predictions (using the same baseline for calculating the temperature anomalies):

- IPCC prediction for 2015: 0.85ºC

- 2015 anomaly on the "updated" IPCC graph: 0.75ºC

And that was in a super El Nino year.

The IPCC's predictions remain consistently and spectacularly wrong.

(And since you think you're so clever and that I'm just stubborn, you can look forward to a new thread this weekend where we'll examine your predictions. It will be a lot of fun. :eyebrows

Same baseline, moron.

Both the 0.85ºC prediction and the 0.75ºC anomaly in 2015 are based on the Met Office's HadCRUT4.4 data that uses a 1960-1990 baseline.

The 0.85ºC prediction comes from a dodgy chart from Ross McKitrick, in a commentary article from the Post, not the IPCC. I mentioned before that I thought that chart looked wrong and that explains it.
So lets call that projection bullshit unless you can get it direct from the IPCC.

I momentarily forgot that everything you link to tends to be bullshit, my bad.

Until then we'll use our projection that we calculated as 0.83ºC for 2015, which most definitely used the NASA baseline.

 

[Frankfooter]

I would rather debate the merits of the issue with someone who can read graphs properly without creating fairy tales by mixing and matching different data sets. But if Franky's going to be the spokesman for the AGW crowd, so be it.

Lets once again review the chart, and your comment about an earlier version of this chart.

The temperature anomalies fit within the range of the models.

And now you claim that chart to be 'spectacularly' wrong.

 

[Moviefan-2]

The 0.85ºC prediction comes from a dodgy chart from Ross McKitrick, in a commentary article from the Post, not the IPCC. I mentioned before that I thought that chart looked wrong and that explains it.
So lets call that projection bullshit unless you can get it direct from the IPCC.

In other words, now that you know that 0.75ºC is the correct number, you no longer want to compare it with the 0.85ºC prediction that you cited.

Too funny. :biggrin1:

 

[Moviefan-2]

And now you claim that chart to be 'spectacularly' wrong.

To be precise, I said the graph confirms the IPCC's predictions continue to be spectacularly wrong.

And I don't know what you mean when you say "now" I am making that statement. I said the same thing in the quote you are citing -- you just keep cutting that sentence.

The IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly wrong. The graphs confirm it

I said it then. I say it now. There's been no change in my position.

 

[Frankfooter]

In other words, now that you know that 0.75ºC is the correct number, you no longer want to compare it with the 0.85ºC prediction that you cited.

Too funny. :biggrin1:

Nope, lets just go back to using legit sources, not your dodgy source. We could start with this chart from Michael Mann, though I couldn't find the baseline he used in his study.

Or we could use this chart, from Gavin Schmidt of NASA.

Same idea, reality hits the median of the projections adjusted for forcings.

Or we could use the updated IPCC AR5 chart.

Now, which of those are you claiming proves that the IPCC projections aren't accurate?

To be precise, I said the graph confirms the IPCC's predictions continue to be spectacularly wrong.

And remember, each of those charts contains the projections and reality adjusted for the same baseline.

 

[basketcase]

You're no better than Frankfooter when it comes to reading graphs.

So can you explain how all the observed data fitting within the predictions makes those predictions 'spectacularly wrong'?