20,000 Scientists Have Now Signed 'Warning to Humanity'

[Phil C. McNasty]

Phil, even your own article unequivocally states that your claim of "always colder by the lake" is not at all true, and I quote: with hearing the following forecast in springtime and early summer: "Temperatures will be quite mild across the region, though much cooler toward the lake." Springtime and early summer is not always

Right, except every time I go by the lake in wintertime its colder

 

[K Douglas]

Lets forget the snow for one second, can you honestly say Toronto winters have gotten noticably warmer over the last 25 to 30 years??

I'm on your side on the issue but overall I'd say yes our winters in the GTA have been noticeably warmer for at least the past 20 years. Of course during that period we have seen 2 massive El Nino's 1998 and 2015. I've also noticed our autumns have been warmer but our springs and summers have been cooler. All to do with NATURAL climate changes. We (the GTA) have definitely seen less snow during winter but that has more to do with wind patterns than with temperature fluctuations.
Warmer winters with less snow are a good thing - I don't see why people are complaining about that.

 

[K Douglas]

IPCC predictions have been spot on.

Phil and Moviefan, not at all.
For instance, Moviefan made a bet about a single year's temperature which he lost.
He claims to know better then thousands of scientists but couldn't even win a bet on one years global temp.
So sad.

Lets just say that someone who's not aware enough to note an almost 2ºC rise in Toronto's average temperature isn't aware enough to understand climate change.

A trend can show anything - depends on the end points chosen. You choose to start in the 1970's which were a cool period in recorded temperature history.
It's also important to note that these numbers have not been adjusted for the urban heat island effect or for the fact that Environment Canada only relies on temperature data from one weather station located at Pearson Airport.

As far as the accuracy of the GCM's they have been completely wrong. All 31 of them. You're graph showing that they have been accurate is complete bullshit due to data manipulation.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Earth is a few billions years old, but yeah lets start counting the last 100 years temperature data sample, and lets go with that.

Its not like its a small data sample or anything

 

[K Douglas]

Earth is a few billions years old, but yeah lets start counting the last 100 years temperature data sample, and lets go with that.

Its not like its a small data sample or anything

Actually 4.5B years old. But I think a good trend to show would be for the past 10,000 years since the start of the Bronze Age. And during that period the Earth has been cooling.
http://www.dandebat.dk/eng-klima7.htm

 

[shack]

Right, except every time I go by the lake in wintertime its colder

It may be because it is usually windier by the lake, but the temp itself is usually a bit warmer, 1 or 2 degrees which, to be honest, is not always easy to notice.

 

[Moviefan-2]

For instance, Moviefan made a bet about a single year's temperature which he lost.

Every time Frankfooter is getting crushed in a debate on this topic, he tries to derail the thread with his bullshit claim that 0.13 is a larger number than 0.15.

It was bullshit in January 2016. It's bullshit today -- just like Franky's claim in another thread that I fabricated a Kathleen Wynne quote that can still be found on Wynne's Twitter feed:

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...an-collapses&p=6084825&viewfull=1#post6084825

https://twitter.com/Kathleen_Wynne/status/972902584670392320

 

[Moviefan-2]

He claims to know better then thousands of scientists (after he won) a bet on one years global temp.

I fixed the factual error in your quote.

As for the scientists and the IPCC, the scientists have repeatedly published peer reviewed papers in Nature and other journals that say the computer model predictions were wrong.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2973

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep31789

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncl...0V49&tracking_referrer=www.climatecentral.org

The IPCC also said the predictions were wrong in its most recent report.

The "denier" is Frankfooter who continues to prefer his own wishful thinking over the recorded temperature data.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You're graph showing that they have been accurate is complete bullshit due to data manipulation.

Apart from the serious methodological problems with Franky's graph, the numbers in it are out of date.

Here is a graph with current temperature anomalies. There's no sign of the skyrocketing temperature increases predicted by the climate alarmists.

 

[managee]

Apart from the serious methodological problems with Franky's graph, the numbers in it are out of date.

Here is a graph with current temperature anomalies. There's no sign of the skyrocketing temperature increases predicted by the climate alarmists.

Seems to be on the incline...

As borrowed from https://wottsupwiththat.com/ A site developed as “a response to climate change disinformation at wattsupwiththat.com.”

Are there really credible climate scientists predicting “skyrocketing temperatures” in the the short-term?

I mean, at-least for the work I do, very small year-to-year temperature increases are having dramatic and irreversible changes on the ecosystems I’m studying.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Seems to be on the incline...

At nowhere near the rate that the IPCC and the Michael Mann crowd predicted. As the IPCC and others have reported, the simulated predictions were wrong.

But don't take my word for it. Read the climate researchers' published papers for yourself.

“There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing,” says lead author John Fyfe, a climate modeller at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis in Victoria, British Columbia. “We can’t ignore it.”

https://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414

(By the way, this is 2018).

 

[Frankfooter]

Every time Frankfooter is getting crushed in a debate on this topic, he tries to derail the thread with his bullshit claim that 0.13 is a larger number than 0.15.

Typical climate denier, still couldn't figure out that when he bet that the global temp wouldn't hit 0.83ºC that he lost the bet after it hit 0.86ºC.
You really are bad at math and science both, aren't you?

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

If that's the chart you're saying will hit 0.83 at the end of 2015, we definitely have a bet.

 

[Frankfooter]

At nowhere near the rate that the IPCC and the Michael Mann crowd predicted.

Here's a chart that compares IPCC projections and reality.
They are spot on, once again you aren't very good at numbers or science, are you?

 

[managee]

At nowhere near the rate that the IPCC and the Michael Mann crowd predicted. As the IPCC and others have reported, the simulated predictions were wrong.

But don't take my word for it. Read the climate researchers' published papers for yourself.

https://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414

(By the way, this is 2018).

It is indeed 2018. Based on that 2016 article you posted, you might have confused some.

I think that quote you posted got cut off.

“There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing,” says lead author John Fyfe, a climate modeller at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis in Victoria, British Columbia. “We can’t ignore it.”

Fyfe uses the term “slowdown” rather than “hiatus” and stresses that it does not in any way undermine global-warming theory.

To avoid further confusion, here’s the whole article:

Global warming ‘hiatus’ debate flares up again

Researchers now argue that slowdown in warming was real.

Jeff Tollefson
24 February 2016

Industrial emissions continued to rise rapidly in the early 21st century, but temperatures did not increase as much as some expected.

The latest salvo in an ongoing row over global-warming trends claims that warming has indeed slowed down this century.

An apparent slowing in the rise of global temperatures at the beginning of the twenty-first century, which is not explained by climate models, was referred to as a “hiatus” or a “pause” when first observed several years ago. Climate-change sceptics have used this as evidence that global warming has stopped. But in June last year, a study in Science claimed that the hiatus was just an artefact which vanishes when biases in temperature data are corrected1.

Now a prominent group of researchers is countering that claim, arguing in Nature Climate Change that even after correcting these biases the slowdown was real.

“There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing,” says lead author John Fyfe, a climate modeller at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis in Victoria, British Columbia. “We can’t ignore it.”

Fyfe uses the term “slowdown” rather than “hiatus” and stresses that it does not in any way undermine global-warming theory.

Ups and downs

The debate revolves in part around statistics on temperature trends. The study1 that questioned the existence of the slowdown corrected known biases in the surface temperature record maintained by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), such as differences in temperature readings from ships and buoys. This effectively increased the warming recorded, and the researchers also extended the record to include 2014, which set a new record high for average temperatures.

That work, led by Thomas Karl, director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information in Asheville, North Carolina, calculated the rate of global warming between 1950 and 1999 as being 0.113 °C per decade, similar to the 0.116 °C a decade calculated for 2000–14. This, Karl said, meant that an assessment done by the influential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 20133 showing that warming had slowed was no longer valid.

Fyfe and his colleagues argue2 that Karl’s approach was biased by a period of relatively flat temperatures that extended from the 1950s into the early 1970s. Greenhouse-gas emissions were lower then, and emissions of industrial pollutants such as sulphate aerosols were cooling the planet by reflecting sunlight back into space. Fyfe says that his calculations show that the planet warmed at 0.170 °C per decade from 1972 to 2001, which is significantly higher than the warming of 0.113 °C per decade he calculates for 2000–14.

Fyfe says that the advantage of this approach is that it takes account of events that affect decadal temperature trends. For instance, researchers have found that climate models underestimated the cooling effect of volcanic eruption and overestimated the heating from solar radiation at the beginning of the twenty-first century4. Other researchers are investigating variability in the Pacific Ocean, including a measure of sea surface temperatures known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)5. All these things can affect the climate, and mask the longer-term warming trend.

Bumps and wiggles

Susan Solomon, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, says that Fyfe’s framework helps to put twenty-first-century trends into perspective, and clearly indicates that the rate of warming slowed down at a time when greenhouse-gas emissions were rising dramatically.

“It’s important to explain that,” Solomon says. “As scientists, we are curious about every bump and wiggle in that curve.”

For his part, Karl acknowledges that it is important to investigate how short-term effects might impact decadal trends, but says that these short term trends do not necessarily elucidate the long-term effects of rising greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere.

“What gets obfuscated is the goal of uncovering the warming due to persistent greenhouse forcing [by human emissions],” Karl says. “It is simply not possible to gain insight on that underlying trend from short, segmented 10- to 20-year periods.”

Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, is tired of the entire discussion, which he says comes down to definitions and academic bickering. There is no evidence for a change in the long-term warming trend, he says, and there are always a host of reasons why a short-term trend might diverge — and why the climate models might not capture that divergence.

“A little bit of turf-protecting and self-promotion I think is the most parsimonious explanation,” Schmidt says. “Not that there's anything wrong with that.”

 

[Moviefan-2]

I think that quote you posted got cut off.

Not at all. I quoted the part about the observed data confirming that the simulated predictions have been wrong -- as I said.

As far as his personal opinions go, he's entitled to his opinions. However, his opinions don't do anything to support your erroneous statements about the computer model simulations.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You really are bad at math and science both, aren't you?

It is rather amusing that a guy who is now in his third year of insisting that 0.13 is greater than 0.15 is accusing me of being "bad at math and science."

But since he's raised these issues about math and science, let's check his record.

For the benefit of anyone who's never seen it before, here is a collection of some of Frankfooter's greatest hits on the topic of man-made global warming. As preposterous as many of these statements are, all are supported by links to the original source, so that anyone who is skeptical can confirm they're all perfectly accurate descriptions of Frankfooter's posts.

Man-made global warming: Frankfooter's greatest hits

- Nov. 10, 2015 -- He calculated that the "pre-industrial age" refers to the year 1990: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...armer-Planet&p=5394609&viewfull=1#post5394609. He repeated that claim on Nov. 21: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ing-Point%92&p=5404144&viewfull=1#post5404144

- Nov. 21, 2015 -- He claimed it was "conspiracy thread business" to assert that NASA's pre-adjusted data (which ran to the end of May) showed there wasn't a single month in 2015 that was a record breaker: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5403467&viewfull=1#post5403467. He spent an entire weekend making that argument until he was finally forced to concede that I was right.

- Nov. 27, 2015 -- This is still one of my favourites. He posted a graph that he said shows the "IPCC's projection" for 2015: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5410384&viewfull=1#post5410384. Then, after it was explained to him that the graph shows the IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly wrong, he said it was "not an IPCC projection" and ran away from his own graph: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5416739&viewfull=1#post5416739

- Nov. 29, 2015 -- He said NASA and NOAA don't use sea surface temperatures in their calculations of the global temperature anomalies: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...imate-Change&p=5411862&viewfull=1#post5411862. Actually, they do.

- Dec. 1, 2015 -- Another classic. He said the ninth month of the year is "March": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5414060&viewfull=1#post5414060

- Dec. 5, 2015 -- He posted what he said is a Met Office graph that shows updated HadCRUT4 data: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5416886&viewfull=1#post5416886. In fact, the graph came from Columbia University and uses the entirely different NASA data.

- Jan. 8, 2016 -- He said NASA has "never altered any data, all they did was alter the weighting of ocean temperature readings....": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-warming-bet&p=5443355&viewfull=1#post5443355

- Jan. 10, 2016 -- He said I was "lying" when I said that a temperature change from 0.68ºC to 0.83ºC is an increase of 0.15ºC: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-warming-bet&p=5445053&viewfull=1#post5445053

- Feb. 3, 2016 -- He said the calculation that the average of 0.75 + 0.82 + 0.84 + 0.71 + 0.71 is 0.766 is "denier math": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?550100-The-End-is-Near&p=5466417&viewfull=1#post5466417

- Feb. 4, 2016 -- He called it "lying your face off" when I said the difference between 0.43 and 0.68 is 0.25: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?550100-The-End-is-Near&p=5466781&viewfull=1#post5466781

- Feb. 8, 2016 -- A gem. He said the graphs on NASA's Vital Signs of the Planet page were "fake": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5470561&viewfull=1#post5470561. He repeated the claim on Feb. 13 when he said the NASA graphs had been "possibly doctored": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5473971&viewfull=1#post5473971

- Feb. 11, 2016 -- He dismissed NASA GISS director Gavin Schmidt's graph of temperature anomalies as "dodgy": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5472913&viewfull=1#post5472913

- Feb. 11, 2016 -- He said NASA GISS director Gavin Schmidt's Twitter account isn't "legit": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5472991&viewfull=1#post5472991

- Feb. 20, 2016 -- He said it was a "blatantly false claim" that the difference between 0.74 and 0.84 is 0.10: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5479780&viewfull=1#post5479780

- March 3, 2016 -- He said it's "not possible" for 0.89 to equal 0.89: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...imate-change&p=5489838&viewfull=1#post5489838

- March 27, 2016 -- He said it was "incredibly stupid" to conclude that half of 2ºC is 1ºC: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Early-April&p=5509136&viewfull=1#post5509136

- April 23, 2016 -- He tried to claim that 0.75 and 0.87 are the exact same number: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...believers%92&p=5531128&viewfull=1#post5531128

- April 23, 2016 -- He claimed the average temperature for the period from 1961 to 1990 is a "different baseline" than the average temperature for the period from 1961 to 1990: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...believers%92&p=5531216&viewfull=1#post5531216

- May 1, 2016 -- He said that a climate researcher who thinks warming is 99% due to natural causes believes that "anthropogenic" climate change is happening: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=5537250#post5537250

- May 11, 2016 -- He said all of the warming since 1850 was caused by humans (even the IPCC doesn't support him on this one): https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=5546112#post5546112

- May 12, 2016 - He said the warming "slowdown" in the 21st century "still fits" Michael Mann's hockey stick graph: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Frankfooter&p=5547096&viewfull=1#post5547096

 

[Frankfooter]

Apart from the serious methodological problems with Franky's graph, the numbers in it are out of date.

Here is a graph with current temperature anomalies. There's no sign of the skyrocketing temperature increases predicted by the climate alarmists.
]

That's a lovely chart of atmospheric temperatures.
As someone who apparently lives in the clouds I'm sure its relevant to you.
Not so much for those of us who live on the surface.

 

[Frankfooter]

It is rather amusing that a guy who is now in his third year of insisting that 0.13 is greater than 0.15 is accusing me of being "bad at math and science."

But since he's raised these issues about math and science, let's check his record.

Dude, your math still sucks ass.
Why don't you tell us where in this bet you found the number 0.15.

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

If that's the chart you're saying will hit 0.83 at the end of 2015, we definitely have a bet.

 

[managee]

As far as his personal opinions go, he's entitled to his opinions. However, his opinions don't do anything to support your erroneous statements about the computer model simulations.

Although I imagine Fyfe appreciates you giving him permission to have an opinion, I’m a little confused by his credibility now.

But don't take my word for it. Read the climate researchers' published papers for yourself.

You call him a “climate researcher.” The article you posted calls him a “climate modeller.” He has identified a “mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing.” All good so far.

The next paragraph in the article begins with: “Fyfe uses the term “slowdown” rather than “hiatus” and stresses that it does not in any way undermine global-warming theory.”

In your response to me where I point this out you then say “As far as his personal opinions go, he's entitled to his opinions.”

So, when he makes his assertion on models vs. observation he’s a climate researcher, but when he says this doesn’t “in any way undermine global-warming theory” it’s just his personal opinion?

Seems a bit inconsistent.

You were the one that quoted a climate modeller who stresses his findings “don’t undermine global-warming theory.”

I’m confused why you’d do that.

I fully agree that many of the original global warming models got it wrong. Many of the models also underestimated the actual ecological impact of climate change based on our current global temperatures.

I’m not sure if you think people here are arguing with you about whether or not predictions (or models) on global warming trends have been accurate to a tenth of a degree (or half a degree, or one degree or whatever) over the past decade, half-century, century or not?

I’m not following you down a rabbit hole if this is your issue.

===

But, back to my “Seems to be on the incline” statement about the graph you posted. Do you feel that graph shows temperature stability? Or is it decline that your graph shows?

I still see incline, and hopefully like Fyfe, I’m entitled to an opinion. I’d love to hear yours.

Just as a reminder for what the graph looks like:

It still appears to be on the incline to me.

 

[K Douglas]

I'm glad our resident alarmists are now willing to accept the satellite temperature record as being the most accurate measure of global temperature since its inception in 1979.
As you can see the record shows a moderate warming trend of about 0.4C over 40 years. During that period Earth has seen two ENSO events, the first of which was the largest of the 20th century. That 1998 event caused a step change in global temperature of about 0.2C. That's correct a natural climate event explains half of the increase.