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

[Moviefan-2]

I'm quite proud that you got your first question right and that you've admitted that the planet has warmed about 1ºC so far, as the IPCC projected.

He's done it again!!

Frankfooter bristles every time I point out that he believes the "pre-industrial age" refers to the year 1990 (as seen in the original post, he said the 1ºC temperature increase from the "pre-industrial" age dated back "25 years" from 2015).

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

But he still believes it!

He now claims the IPCC "projected" the "1ºC so far" temperature increase from the pre-industrial age. Yet the IPCC was only created in 1988.

The debate is over. Frankfooter has once again reaffirmed that he believes the "pre-industrial age" refers to 1990.

 

[Frankfooter]

To be more precise, I calculated the percentage increase - a calculation you originally called "frigging comedy gold" and "incredibly incompetent."

Darn it all!

I thought you were learning, but here you are with the same basic screwup again.
All you managed to calculate was how much more 5 is than 1, and it took you a while but you got it right.
The percentage thing you totally failed, by your math:
An increase in the range of 1-5 is 400% whether you're talking a million dollars, 16ºC, 288º Kevlin or 2 brain cells.

Are you still standing by your math skills and saying that you calculated the percentage range of the temp increase of the planet or just the difference between 5 and 1?

 

[Frankfooter]

He's done it again!!

Frankfooter bristles every time I point out that he believes the "pre-industrial age" refers to the year 1990 (as seen in the original post, he said the 1ºC temperature increase from the "pre-industrial" age dated back "25 years" from 2015).

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

But he still believes it!

He now claims the IPCC "projected" the "1ºC so far" temperature increase from the pre-industrial age. Yet the IPCC was only created in 1988.

The debate is over. Frankfooter has once again reaffirmed that he believes the "pre-industrial age" refers to 1990.

Oh well, now you're back to lying about what I said.
So here we go again.
Stop lying about this claim as I never said anything of the sort.
This is your first warning, keep it up and I'll report you.

Not to mention how ridiculous he sounds trying to claim that the IPCC said the temp of the planet would rise 1ºC in 25 years.
Shockingly sad.

Shall we get back to what you have done successfully, namely calculating how much more 5 is than 1?
Maybe if we start from there again we can make as far as cherry picking.

 

[K Douglas]

Satellite data shows the same warming.
Its here listed on this chart, I challenge to identify which are surface temps and which are satellite, just to check to see if you have any idea what you are talking about.

Where's the real satellite dataset from UAH?

 

[Frankfooter]

Where's the real satellite dataset from UAH?

So you couldn't identify the satellite data represented on that chart?
Or do you only accept UAH and no other data sets?

 

[K Douglas]

So you couldn't identify the satellite data represented on that chart?
Or do you only accept UAH and no other data sets?

I accept the UAH dataset as the preeminent satellite record because they didn't fudge numbers to support a narrative like other datasets did.

 

[Frankfooter]

I accept the UAH dataset as the preeminent satellite record because they didn't fudge numbers to support a narrative like other datasets did.

But they are basically the same, they are only about 0.2ºC lower.
Which means you accept the fact that climate change is happening and that its within the range of IPCC projections.

 

[Frankfooter]

Remember the good ole days before Exxon did their handiwork?
Back in the days when the winter olympics were on real snow?

How Beijing manufactured winter for the 2022 Olympics
The lack of real snow at the Winter Olympics in Beijing may hint at the future of winter sports

 

[shack]

I've been offered tutoring services from someone whose qualifications are:

- Functionally illiterate.
- Functionally innumerate.

Regardless of the positions he may take, those statements are clearly not true.

It doesn't give one any confidence to believe other things that you may say.

 

[Moviefan-2]

All you managed to calculate was how much more 5 is than 1, and it took you a while but you got it right.

I think your "brain" is getting even softer than usual.

I got it right away. It was you who took more than a week to acknowledge the calculaton was correct after initially saying it was "incredibly incompetent" math.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Regardless of the positions he may take, those statements are clearly not true.

They most certainly are true. He often can't calculate the simplest equations and often can't understand the content in links that aren't difficult to read, such as columns from the Toronto Sun.

It was only a few years ago we had to explain to him what a metaphor is.

Check out his "greatest hits" from a few years ago on man-made global warming if you want further proof. Each example is fully sourced:

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?650674-Study-suggests-Liberal-carbon-tax-plan-would-put-more-money-in-Canadians-pockets&p=6227326&viewfull=1#post6227326

Or, if you want to save time, you can simply read the next post (post #92).

 

[Moviefan-2]

Not to mention how ridiculous he sounds trying to claim that the IPCC said the temp of the planet would rise 1ºC in 25 years.

It didn't take long for you to prove you're functionally illiterate.

I didn't say the IPCC made that claim. I said you were the one who made that claim.

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

You're also the one who said the IPCC "projected" a 1ºC increase in the Earth's temperature.

(Y)ou've admitted that the planet has warmed about 1ºC so far, as the IPCC projected.

The IPCC was created in 1988.

Tell us, Franky, when did the IPCC make that projection?

 

[Frankfooter]

I think your "brain" is getting even softer than usual.

I got it right away. It was you who took more than a week to acknowledge the calculaton was correct after initially saying it was "incredibly incompetent" math.

I said you managed to calculate how much more 5 is than 1 correctly AND also repeatedly told you that you failed to calculate the percentage increase range correctly.
I was trying to encourage this growth in your math skills.
But clearly you haven't gotten any further.

They most certainly are true. He often can't calculate the simplest equations and often can't understand the content in links that aren't difficult to read, such as columns from the Toronto Sun.

It was only a few years ago we had to explain to him what a metaphor is.

Check out his "greatest hits" from a few years ago on man-made global warming if you want further proof. Each example is fully sourced:

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?650674-Study-suggests-Liberal-carbon-tax-plan-would-put-more-money-in-Canadians-pockets&p=6227326&viewfull=1#post6227326

You know you've posted that list quite a few times over the years and each time I said every sing thing on that list is false.
Each time I challenged you to pick a single item and showed your claims are bullshit.
And each time you stopped posting it for a few months until you forgot.
Is it that time again?

Or do we just need to look to see if any of those claims are false enough to reported?
Do you think any single one of those is strong enough not to get you reported?

 

[Frankfooter]

It didn't take long for you to prove you're functionally illiterate.

I didn't say the IPCC made that claim. I said you were the one who made that claim.

So now you're making false claims about what I said and what the IPCC said.
Stop making false claims about my statements or I will report you.

You're also the one who said the IPCC "projected" a 1ºC increase in the Earth's temperature.
The IPCC was created in 1988.

Tell us, Franky, when did the IPCC make that projection?

IIRC, the first RPC modelling projections were made in 2006, where they modelled that the planet would be warming around 1ºC by now over pre-industrial temperatures.
Of course Exxon also projected about the same amount of warming then, as did James Hansen in the 1980's.
Don't blame me if your English comprehension is so poor that you can't put those thoughts together in one coherent sentence.

Those are the same numbers you confirmed when you confirmed that the IPCC projections are good.

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

 

[Moviefan-2]

Regardless of the positions he may take, those statements are clearly not true.

From Merriam-Webster, here is the definition of "projected" (bolded and underlined emphasis added by me): "an estimate of future possibilities based on a current trend:" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/projection

Frankfooter now claims the IPCC "projected" in 2006 the 1ºC temperature increase that began in the "pre-industrial age."

In fact, NASA's graph shows the temperature in 2006 was already about 0.85ºC above the average temperature in the late 19th century.

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

Thus, even if Frankfooter's unattributed assertion about 2006 is correct, it would still only be a projection of about 0.15ºC, not 1ºC.

I stand by my previous statement about Frankfooter's qualifications, including my assertion that he is functionally illiterate and innumerate.

 

[Frankfooter]

From Merriam-Webster, here is the definition of "projected" (bolded and underlined emphasis added by me): "an estimate of future possibilities based on a current trend:" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/projection

Frankfooter now claims the IPCC "projected" in 2006 the 1ºC temperature increase that began in the "pre-industrial age."

In fact, NASA's graph shows the temperature in 2006 was already about 0.85ºC above the average temperature in the late 19th century.

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

Thus, even if Frankfooter's unattributed assertion about 2006 is correct, it would still only be a projection of about 0.15ºC, not 1ºC.

I stand by my previous statement about Frankfooter's qualifications, including my assertion that he is functionally illiterate and innumerate.

Lets add chart reading as another subject you failed, moviefan.
The NASA chart has 0.64ºC for 2006, not 0.85ºC.

And you said I was 'innumerate'.
ROTLMAO!!!

 

[Moviefan-2]

Lets add chart reading as another subject you failed, moviefan.
The NASA chart has 0.64ºC for 2006, not 0.85ºC.

Further proof that Frankfooter is functionally illiterate and functionally innumerate.

The NASA graph shows temperature anomalies "relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures": https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

NASA says the temperature in 2006 was 0.64ºC above the 1951-1980 average while the "average temperature in the late 19th century" was approximately 0.2ºC BELOW the 1951-1980 average.

(You see, Franky, that's why all those numbers on the graph prior to 1940 have a minus sign in front of them. )

The difference between 0.64ºC and -0.2ºC (an approximation) is about 0.85ºC.

And you said I was 'innumerate'.

I sure did. I also said you're functionally illiterate.

Indeed, I rest my case.

 

[Frankfooter]

NASA says the temperature in 2006 was 0.64ºC above the 1951-1980 average while the "average temperature in the late 19th century" was approximately 0.2ºC BELOW the 1951-1980 average.

Ah, so you are once again stating that the IPCC projections are accurate.
Nice work.

Yup, IPCC said about 1ºC from pre industrial and you confirmed that is correct as was their projection for 0.2ºC per decade, which is what the bet referenced.
You even confirmed that you lost the bet.
Nicely done.

Now you still have yet to answer what you think is different from the IPCC projections and Exxon's projections in the 1980's.
I'm sure that's too hard for you.

Keep it up.

This is from NASA, which obviously you trust since you got the global temperature from their site.

 

[K Douglas]

Remember the good ole days before Exxon did their handiwork?
Back in the days when the winter olympics were on real snow?

How Beijing manufactured winter for the 2022 Olympics
The lack of real snow at the Winter Olympics in Beijing may hint at the future of winter sports

If you take anything in that article seriously than I just don't know what to say other than you have negative common sense.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Ah, so you are once again stating that the IPCC projections are accurate.

Further proof that Frankfooter is functionally illiterate.

Unless he's gone back to thinking the "pre-industrial age" refers to the year 1990, what I actually said is the overwhelming majority of the warming from the late 19th century to the early 21st century occurred prior to any IPCC "projections."

Furthermore, he failed to explain his total illiteracy and innumeracy in post #98, where he said the difference between an approximate average of 0.2ºC below zero and the 2006 anomaly of 0.64ºC above zero is 0.64ºC.

He even went so far as to accuse me of failing at "chart reading."

This means either one or both of the following:

- He doesn't know how to calculate the difference between -0.20 and +0.64.
- He thought the "late 19th century" referred to the period from 1951 to 1980.

Clearly, he is functionally illiterate and functionally innumerate, just as I said.

He still posts comments that show he doesn't know what the word "projected" means, he doesn't appear to understand "late 19th century" and he has so far refused to correct his erroneous calculation of the difference between -0.20 and +0.64.

Earlier this year, it took him a week to concede that 5 is 400% greater than 1 after initially saying I was "incredibly incompetent" in math.

Let's see how long it takes him to concede that the difference between -0.20 (approximately) and +0.64 isn't 0.64.