Battle of the global warming alarmists - Basketcase vs. Frankfooter

[Moviefan-2]

Here's a funny update.

Last summer, in one of the countless threads about man-made global warming, I posted some graphs that show the predictions made by the United Nations' International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have been spectacularly wrong.

One of the graphs was a graph created by the IPCC that was in an early draft of the IPCC's fifth report in 2013. The graph showed temperature anomalies up to 2011 and confirmed the observed results are far below what the IPCC predicted.

Basketcase complained the graph was out of date and boldly asserted that the data for most recent years is in line with IPCC predictions (the predictions are based on the average of model runs). In three different threads, no less, he posted the same thing, which is quoted below.

The why did you flee from the other thread where you posted this graph?

Seems to me that except for the year 2000, the the error bars of the observations fit into the projections for the past 15 years or so.

Also worth noting is the graph carefully omits the data from 2012 to 2014.

2012 had a +0.6 variation. Well in the middle of the projections.
2013 also had a +0.6 temperature variation. Dead center of the predictions.
2014 was +0.68 which puts it slightly above the central projections.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-temps.html
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/1029/
http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2015/01/16/global-temperature-in-2014-and-2015/



Seems your "spectacularly wrong" description is spectacularly wrong.

Hmm. So Basketcase thinks I was "spectacularly wrong."

According to him, an updated version of the IPCC graph would show 2013 "dead center" in the projections and 2014 "slightly above the central projections." I guess that puts me in my place.

Or ... maybe not.

On Thursday, Frankfooter posted an "updated" version of the so-called spaghetti graph (the version of the graph the IPCC used in its final report). The "updated" graph was created by Ed Hawkins, a climate scientist at the University of Reading. Hawkins has added temperature anomalies for 2013, 2014 and 2015 (the black dots) to the published IPCC graph.

Check out the anomalies for 2013 and 2014 -- they're at the same level as the years preceding them, at the bottom of the model-run projections. 2014 certainly isn't "slightly above the central projections."

So, of the two alarmists, who's got it right? Basketcase or Frankfooter?

(And, no need to worry about the 2015 anomaly, which did show an increase in the super El Nino year last year. As Frankfooter has helpfully reminded us in another thread, even the 2015 anomaly is still well below what was predicted.)

 

[Frankfooter]

Here's a funny update.

Last summer, in one of the countless threads about man-made global warming, I posted some graphs that show the predictions made by the United Nations' International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have been spectacularly wrong.

One of the graphs was a graph created by the IPCC that was in an early draft of the IPCC's fifth report in 2013. The graph showed temperature anomalies up to 2011 and confirmed the observed results are far below what the IPCC predicted.

That chart is not an official IPCC chart, it was from a leaked draft, not the published final report.
Still basing your arguments on using bullshit, dodgy sources, eh moviefan?

Here's a blog post from hotwhopper, which critiques the wattsupwiththat source that I'm sure moviefan used to come up with the unreleased version of the chart in the first place.
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/10/steve-mcintyre-and-anthony-watts-fail.html

As usual, moviefan's claims are bullshit.

 

[Moviefan-2]

That chart is not an official IPCC chart, it was from a leaked draft, not the published final report.

Immaterial.

For the purposes of this thread, the difference between the two graphs isn't significant enough to make any difference.

You should be feeling good about yourself. If your graph is right, you've shown up Basketcase, as the 2013 and 2014 anomalies are nowhere near the "central projections." Your graph clearly has them at the bottom.

Of course, what that confirms about the IPCC's predictions is a completely different matter. :thumb:

 

[Frankfooter]

Immaterial.

You consider it 'immaterial' if your sources are bullshit?

That really sums up everything you claim, doesn't it?

 

[Moviefan-2]

You consider it 'immaterial' if your sources are bullshit?

No, I consider the differences between the first graph (the one that was peer reviewed) and the one that was ultimately published to be immaterial for the purposes of this thread.

The point remains the same: Either Basketcase was right, or you were.

You can't both be right, as your "updated" graph puts 2013 and 2014 nowhere near the "central projections."

 

[Frankfooter]

No, I consider the differences between the first graph (the one that was peer reviewed) and the one that was ultimately published to be immaterial for the purposes of this thread.

The first chart was a leaked chart that contained an error, detailed in the hotwhopper post, which was caught before they published the report.
The peer review caught the error and it was never used.

It is not 'immaterial' to be using that chart and claiming it is an official IPCC chart when it was never published because it contained an error.
You are fraudulently trying to claim this chart is an IPCC sanctioned chart.
It is not.

This whole thread is based off of a bullshit claim.

Its just more bullshit from you.

 

[Moviefan-2]

It is not 'immaterial' to be using that chart and claiming it is an official IPCC chart when it was never published because it contained an error.

Talk about bullshit. I explicitly said it was the graph from the draft report.

For the purposes of this thread, the debate that Frankfooter is trying to start is nothing more than a sideshow. The graphs aren't significantly different when it comes to plotting the temperature data against the range of simulations.

The fact still remains:

-- Basketcase said an "updated" version of the IPCC graph would show the temperature anomalies for 2013 and 2014 were in the centre of the model simulations.

-- Frankfooter's "updated" graph shows the temperature anomalies for 2013 and 2014 are at the bottom, far below the average that the IPCC uses for its predictions.

One of them is clearly wrong.

Tell us, Frankfooter, who has it right -- you or Basketcase?

 

[Frankfooter]

Talk about bullshit. I explicitly said it was the graph from the draft report.

Its bullshit to use a chart that was found to contain an error and therefore not published and claim that its legit.

This whole thread is based off of a bullshit claim.

Its just more bullshit from you.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Franky's doing everything he can to avoid the actual point of the thread.

That's hilarious.

 

[Frankfooter]

Franky's doing everything he can to avoid the actual point of the thread.

That's hilarious.

The point of this thread is that everything you post is based on bullshit.

 

[basketcase]

I feel so special since you honour me with a thread. Terb will be glad that you started yet another thread showing your luddite view on climate change.

But thanks for digging into the archives where I show you how asinine your claims of "spectacularly wrong" are.

 

[FAST]

I would like to make a suggestion to the 2 protagonists, AND the mods, that all new posts regarding the "bet" should be confined to this thread ONLY.

Thanks, FAST

 

[bishop]

MF2 creating a thread just to kick up old dirt into people's faces is just shameful.

 

[Moviefan-2]

MF2 creating a thread just to kick up old dirt into people's faces is just shameful.

I make no apologies.

Given the repeated number of times that these two clowns have challenged my ability to read graphs -- including this weekend -- this is entirely fair game.

For example (from Saturday, before this thread was created):

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'.

Is it a fuji-like sense of stubbornness? A refusal to admit the world isn't the same as when you were a child? A paranoid belief that the authorities are really just out to get you?

 

[Frankfooter]

I make no apologies.

You should apologize for starting this thread and basing false claims off of a bullshit chart.
Using bullshit sources to accuse others of making mistakes should embarrass you.

You should be ashamed after being caught out posting bullshit.
Again.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You should apologize for starting this thread and basing false claims off of a bullshit chart.
Using bullshit sources to accuse others of making mistakes should embarrass you.

You should be ashamed after being caught out posting bullshit.
Again.

I finally find one thing that you got right -- and this is the thanks I get.

I'm hurt. :biggrin1:

 

[Moviefan-2]

I would like to make a suggestion to the 2 protagonists, AND the mods, that all new posts regarding the "bet" should be confined to this thread ONLY.

Thanks, FAST

You should talk to Franky. I offered to drop the matter a long time ago.

 

[Frankfooter]

I finally find one thing that you got right --

I'm glad that you agree that your claim is bullshit as it is based off of a bullshit chart.

 

[Moviefan-2]

I'm glad that you agree that your claim is bullshit as it is based off of a bullshit chart.

Jeez, you can't even figure it out when you finally managed to get something right.

What you got correct -- finally -- is that the updated anomalies for 2013 and 2014 were at the bottom of the simulations.

 

[Frankfooter]

Jeez, you can't even figure it out when you finally managed to get something right.

What you got correct -- finally -- is that the updated anomalies for 2013 and 2014 were at the bottom of the simulations.

You should just end this thread instead of digging yourself deeper into your bullshit.

Lets recap:

This thread is based off of a bullshit chart that moviefan is trying pass off as legit.