Frankfooter's posts from 2015 show the IPCC's predictions of global warming were spectacularly wrong

[Moviefan-2]

Frankfooter seems to be determined to start debates about the IPCC's predictions about global temperatures. Since he's so determined to debate this point, let' compare what he said about the IPCC's predictions against the current data.

Back in 2015, I said the IPCC's doomsday warning that the Earth's temperature could increase by almost 6ºC this century (https://bit.ly/3GsyinL) was total bullshit.

In response, Frankfooter said that was an "upper range" worst-case scenario and the IPCC's most likely prediction was 4ºC over the century or 1ºC per quarter-century.

And with this being about 25 years from this prediction, 5.8ºC being the upper range of the IPCC projections (with 4ºC being the median of the worst case projection), and the temperature having gone up 1ºC, this makes the predictions once again look accurate and possibly accurate for their worst case scenario.


1ºC = 1/4 of 4ºC (median worst case scenario).
25 years (1990-2015) = 1/4 of the 100 year projection timeline.

https://terb.cc/xenforo/threads/climate-change-kills-the-mood-economists-warn-of-less-sex-on-a-warmer-planet.543407/page-2#post-5394609

Given that we're getting near the end of the first quarter, let's see how that prediction stands.

Here's NASA's data of temperature anomalies. Ignoring the El Nino and La Nina weather phenomena at the turn of the century, NASA's data show a temperature increase from 2001 to 2021 of about 0.3ºC so far.

Global Surface Temperature | NASA Global Climate Change

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

climate.nasa.gov

That's a mere one-third of where Frankfooter said we would be in just a few years' time.

If Frankfooter stands by what he posted six years ago, it means we're agreed the IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly wrong.

 

[Frankfooter]

Frankfooter seems to be determined to start debates about the IPCC's predictions about global temperatures. Since he's so determined to debate this point, let' compare what he said about the IPCC's predictions against the current data.

Back in 2015, I said the IPCC's doomsday warning that the Earth's temperature could increase by almost 6ºC this century (https://bit.ly/3GsyinL) was total bullshit.

In response, Frankfooter said that was an "upper range" worst-case scenario and the IPCC's most likely prediction was 4ºC over the century or 1ºC per quarter-century.

https://terb.cc/xenforo/threads/climate-change-kills-the-mood-economists-warn-of-less-sex-on-a-warmer-planet.543407/page-2#post-5394609

Given that we're getting near the end of the first quarter, let's see how that prediction stands.

Here's NASA's data of temperature anomalies. Ignoring the El Nino and La Nina weather phenomena at the turn of the century, NASA's data show a temperature increase from 2001 to 2021 of about 0.3ºC so far.

Global Surface Temperature | NASA Global Climate Change

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

climate.nasa.gov

That's a mere one-third of where Frankfooter said we would be in just a few years' time.

If Frankfooter stands by what he posted six years ago, it means we're agreed the IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly wrong.

Total fail, moviefan.

The IPCC projections at the time were 0.2ºC per decade, which shows that you are admitting the planet is now warming more than their projections at 0.3ºC per decade.
As you stated, we've so far warmed the planet about 1ºC from pre-industrial temps, which is right where the IPCC predicted we'd be and right where you admitted we are.

The bet was based on the IPCC's predictions of temperature increases of 0.2ºC per decade, not numerical changes produced retroactively through changes in methodology.

This is you confirming that the planet has warmed by 1ºC, as the IPCC projected.

The Met Office numbers on your graph confirm what I said yesterday -- a temperature increase of about 1ºC over 135 years.

Which I gather is why you said this:

For the record, Franky, that puts me in the 97% who say warming has occurred.

I expect that either you or the mods will delete this thread.
You, because you've embarrassed yourself again or the mods because its a thread that's an attempt at a personal attack.

 

[Moviefan-2]

The IPCC projections at the time were 0.2ºC per decade

1ºC = 1/4 of 4ºC (median worst case scenario).
25 years (1990-2015) = 1/4 of the 100 year projection timeline.

Frankfooter's math: 0.2ºC x 2.5 = 1ºC

Hilarious.

 

[Frankfooter]

Frankfooter's math: 0.2ºC x 2.5 = 1ºC

Hilarious.

Both of those statements are correct and they are both about different questions from you.
Don't be childish and try to pretend they are the same.

And while you're not being childish, own up to the fact that you confirmed the IPCC numbers and projections are correct.

 

[K Douglas]

No surprise. He parrots the IPCC which is more a political organization as opposed to a scientific one.

 

[Frankfooter]

No surprise. He parrots the IPCC which is more a political organization as opposed to a scientific one.

Its a volunteer, all scientist, organization whose mandate is to provide summaries of the science for politicians.
Its not political at all.

 

[basketcase]

And yet the global temperature average keeps trending up.

2021 joins top 7 warmest years on record: WMO

Last year joined the list of the seven warmest years on record, the UN weather agency said on Wednesday, and was also the seventh consecutive year when the global temperature has been more than 1°C above pre-industrial levels; edging closer to the limit laid out under the 2015 Paris Agreement on...

news.un.org

 

[shack]

No surprise. He parrots the IPCC which is more a political organization as opposed to a scientific one.

For some reason, when it comes to covid and vaccines, you and the other right wingers are not as strong a proponent of the scientific community.

I guess convenience has to factor into the equation.

 

[JohnLarue]

No surprise. He parrots the IPCC which is more a political organization as opposed to a scientific one.

No surprise for a far more obvious reason

 

[Frankfooter]

No surprise for a far more obvious reason

You mean the obvious reason that I understand the science?

 

[oil&gas]

For some reason, when it comes to covid and vaccines, you and the other right wingers are not as strong a proponent of the scientific community.

Do you know even the most ardent followers of Jesus don't necessarily agree with
everything He said? I had doubt about the booster shoot of vaccine but went for
it anyway. I may skip the 4th one depending on if the pandemic is going to worsen.
My decision is no more scientific or unscientific than my decision to continue driving
and flying without worrying about the consequence of the failure to meet the 50%
emission reduction target. I make those decisions based on common sense more than
science.

I guess convenience has to factor into the equation.

 

[Frankfooter]

My decision is no more scientific or unscientific than my decision to continue driving
and flying without worrying about the consequence of the failure to meet the 50%
emission reduction target.

Why stop now after a career not worrying about the consequences.

 

[shack]

Do you know even the most ardent followers of Jesus don't necessarily agree with
everything He said? I had doubt about the booster shoot of vaccine but went for
it anyway. I may skip the 4th one depending on if the pandemic is going to worsen.
My decision is no more scientific or unscientific than my decision to continue driving
and flying without worrying about the consequence of the failure to meet the 50%
emission reduction target. I make those decisions based on common sense more than
science.

I was referring to the multitude of people like K Douglas who immediately deny everything the scientific community says/recommends about covid out of hand because it doesn't align with their politics, and they do it with no factual basis. But now all of a sudden, when convenient, he references them.

Not everybody, but many people display such blatant hypocrisy that I felt the need to call him out.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Frankfooter's math: 0.2ºC x 2.5 = 1ºC

Both of those statements are correct and they are both about different questions from you.

??????

 

[Moviefan-2]

From NASA:

- 2016 temperature anomaly: 1.02ºC
- 2021 temperature anomaly: 0.85ºC

And yet the global temperature average keeps trending up.

?????

 

[Moviefan-2]

The IPCC projections at the time were 0.2ºC per decade, which shows you are admitting the planet is now warming more than their projections at 0.3ºC per decade.

?????

The NASA graph that Frankfooter loves to post shows the temperature in the 21st century increasing at an average of 0.15ºC per decade.

Global Surface Temperature | NASA Global Climate Change

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

climate.nasa.gov

I most certainly am not "admitting" that 0.15 is "more" than 0.2.

Nor do I understand how a temperature an increase of 0.2ºC per decade leads to a projected 100-year increase of 4ºC or 6ºC.

https://terb.cc/xenforo/threads/climate-change-kills-the-mood-economists-warn-of-less-sex-on-a-warmer-planet.543407/page-2#post-5394609

Based on Frankfooter's own posts, it's clear the IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly wrong. Much as I have been saying for years.

 

[Frankfooter]

??????

The two posts were talking about two separate things,.
1) The long term projection over 100 years of 4ºC was a back of the envelope calculation to show that the warming we are experiencing is closer to the extreme projections than the low projections.
2) The IPCC projections for the coming decades of 0.2ºC that we used for our bet.

Nowhere did I say

Frankfooter's math: 0.2ºC x 2.5 = 1ºC

And once again, if you continue to post false statements that you claim I made, you'll get reported.
This is your first warning.
Stick to the facts, if you can.


But clearly you can't. Here you are cherry picking two numbers off a chart:
Cherry picking is dishonest.

From NASA:
- 2016 temperature anomaly: 1.02ºC
- 2021 temperature anomaly: 0.85ºC

?????
The NASA graph that Frankfooter loves to post shows the temperature in the 21st century increasing at an average of 0.15ºC per decade.

Global Surface Temperature | NASA Global Climate Change

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

climate.nasa.gov

Funny, that chart shows 0.39ºC for 2000 and 1.02ºC for 2020. That would make the difference 0.63ºC over two decades or 0.3º per decade. That's using your own cherry picking.
By your claims you're now saying that 0.15 is more than 0.3.
Whoopsies, amazing what using your own words does.

Or we could also cherry pick 1999 to 2019, 0.38ºC to 0.98ºC. That gives us 0.3ºC a decade as well.
Isn't cherry picking fun!

There's a lot you don't understand, moviefan, but really, we both know its you trolling and trying to intentionally make false claims.
The 4-6ºC warming is at the outside of projections in RCP 8.5. So if you want to calculate 100 years to get to 4ºC that would be 0.4ºC a decade. That's what it would take to get to RCP 8.5 and the chart you just showed shows 0.3ºC and a likely exponential curve.

Really, all you've done is prove that warming is happening, you know its happening and you know the IPCC projections are accurate.
And that's only looking at global temp, if you add in all the other data its clear.
You're bullshitting.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Funny, that chart shows 0.39ºC for 2000 and 1.02ºC for 2020. That would make the difference 0.63ºC over two decades or 0.3º per decade. That's using your own cherry picking.

Actually, you're the one who's cherry picking, using the 2000 La Nina weather phenomenon as a starting point and ending the calculation in 2020 when we're now in February 2022.

I chose 2001 as a starting point because it came after both the El Nino and La Nina weather phenomena at the turn of the century. It's called intellectual honesty.

The NASA graph shows the temperature increase over the past 20 years was about 0.15ºC per decade, nowhere near the 0.4ºC per decade increase or the "worst case" 0.6ºC per decade the IPCC predicted (the "worst case" was the calculation if man-made emissions were to increase - which they did, setting record levels in recent years. ).

Warming could be worst in 10,000 years

An international group of scientists has confirmed the worst fears of environmentalists: the Earth's atmosphere could soar by almost 6C by 2100 - a rise unprecedented in the past 10,000 years.

www.theguardian.com

In fact, even the cherry-picked numbers that artificially inflates the number to 0.3ºC is still only half of the doomsday prediction the IPCC made 20 years ago.

All the numbers show the exact same thing: the IPCC's predictions continue to be spectacularly wrong.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Nowhere did I say (0.2ºC x 2.5 = 1ºC)

Post no. 4. Frankfooter's exact word was "correct": https://terb.cc/xenforo/threads/fra...were-spectacularly-wrong.773259/#post-7385690

 

[Frankfooter]

Post no. 4. Frankfooter's exact word was "correct": https://terb.cc/xenforo/threads/fra...were-spectacularly-wrong.773259/#post-7385690

No, I said both of my posts were correct, not your claim.

Never have I said the numbers you are falsely claiming I said.
Stop deliberately lying or I will have to report you.
Second warning.