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

[Moviefan-2]

I should add that Frankfooter's latest nuttiness has convinced me to bookmark this thread. My "projection" is this will give us plenty of laughs long after the thread has run its course.

 

[Frankfooter]

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."

I never said that pre-industrial age was 1990.
Stop lying about what I post, moviefan.
You can get banned for that nonsense.
Second warning.

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.

You missed the target.
You were supposed to be calculating the range of increase in the global temperature of the planet, but all you got was how much more 5 is than 1.
Congratulations were deserved in upping your math skills to calculate that, but you still failed to calculate the range of increase of the global temp.

Whatever, now that you've admitted the planet is warming just as much as the IPCC projected the rest is just gravy.
You've been lying all along, you knew the science is correct and climate change is happening and yet here you are still...

 

[Frankfooter]

I should add that Frankfooter's latest nuttiness has convinced me to bookmark this thread. My "projection" is this will give us plenty of laughs long after the thread has run its course.

Yes, bookmark the thread where you admitted you were wrong and the IPCC is right.

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

Yes, the planet has experienced some warming over the past 350 years.

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

 

[HungSowel]

This is a 6-year-old grudge, let it go.

 

[Moviefan-2]

This is a 6-year-old grudge, let it go.

Not so. Franky's false accusations where he claims I "admitted" the IPCC's predictions were correct are relatively new.

But I would agree with you that my actual position - that the IPCC's predictions continue to be spectacularly wrong -- is something I have been saying for years.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Yes, bookmark the thread where you admitted you were wrong and the IPCC is right.

Apparently, that's how Frankfooter interprets the headline for this thread. Further proof that he is functionally illiterate.

Meanwhile, he appears to stand by his calculation that the difference between the average temperature in the late 19th century (approx. º0.2C below NASA's baseline) and the reported temperature anomaly in 2006 (0.64ºC above the baseline) is 0.64ºC.

Franky's math: 0.64 - (-0.20) = 0.64ºC.

It will be interesting to see if it takes him a week this time to admit he was wrong.

I never said that pre-industrial age was 1990.
Stop lying about what I post, moviefan.

Too funny. So, now he says I'm "lying" when I say that "1990" in the quote below refers to the year 1990.

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

 

[Frankfooter]

But I would agree with you that my actual position - that the IPCC's predictions continue to be spectacularly wrong -- is something I have been saying for years.

But you've been repeatedly saying the numbers are correct and the projections were accurate.
You admitted that the planet has warmed up just as much as they said it would.

So you claim its wrong but every time you post numbers you they prove they are correct.

 

[Frankfooter]

Meanwhile, he appears to stand by his calculation that the difference between the average temperature in the late 19th century (approx. º0.2C below NASA's baseline) and the reported temperature anomaly in 2006 (0.64ºC above the baseline) is 0.64ºC.

Franky's math: 0.64 - (-0.20) = 0.64ºC.

Hey, I missed the baseline point but you did faulty math in your post as well, that's what threw me off.
You added 0.20ºC to 2006 temperature but not to the present temperature.
So you claimed the 2006 temp was 0.85ºC (which is not 0.64 + 0.2, of course).
Then you didn't add that same 0.2 to the present temperature.
That's what threw me off, I should really look at your posts closer but there are so many and so many errors to keep track of.

So basically, you're admitting again that the planet is warming just as much as the IPCC projected.
Thanks.

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.

 

[Moviefan-2]

But you've been repeatedly saying the numbers are correct and the projections were accurate.

The temperature anomalies date back to the late 19th century.

The IPCC was created in 1988.

Move over, Marty McFly. According to Frankfooter, the IPCC somehow mastered the art of time travel so that it could make "projections" more than 100 years before it was even created.

As was previously mentioned, Frankfooter doesn't know what the word "projection" means.

Definition of PROJECTION

a systematic presentation of intersecting coordinate lines on a flat surface upon which features from a curved surface (as of the earth or the celestial sphere) may be mapped… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[Moviefan-2]

So you claimed the 2006 temp was 0.85ºC (which is not 0.64 + 0.2, of course).

Bullshit.

Here is what I actually said:

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

The 2006 temperature anomaly: 0.64ºC
The "average temperature" anomaly in the late 19th century: approximately -0.20ºC

The difference is "about 0.85ºC". Which is what I said.

(We can add "about" and "approximately" to the growing list of words that functionally illiterate Frankfooter doesn't understand.)

 

[Moviefan-2]

But you've been repeatedly saying the numbers are correct and the projections were accurate.

Apparently, Frankfooter thinks "spectacularly wrong" means "the projections were accurate."

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

https://terb.cc/xenforo/threads/frankfooters-posts-from-2015-show-the-ipccs-predictions-of-global-warming-were-spectacularly-wrong.773259/

 

[Frankfooter]

The IPCC was created in 1988.

Move over, Marty McFly. According to Frankfooter, the IPCC somehow mastered the art of time travel so that it could make "projections" more than 100 years before it was even created.

Try reading slowly, maybe saying the words out loud.

The IPCC made projections in 2006 showing that by around now we would have about a 1ºC increase in the global temperature compared to pre-industrial temperatures.
Only someone with massive reading comprehension issues would confuse a base temperate and starting date with the claim that this meant they were projecting the temperature from their base measurement.

 

[Frankfooter]

Apparently, Frankfooter thinks "spectacularly wrong" means "the projections were accurate."

I love the fact that you think quoting yourself making a false claim somehow makes the false claim true.

Lets go over the details.
1) You confirmed that the IPCC projected a 1ºC increase.
2) You confirmed that we now have a 1ºC increase.
3) You put both of those together and claimed they were spectacularly wrong.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Lets go over the details.
1) You confirmed that the IPCC projected a 1ºC increase.

I "confirmed" the IPCC is capable of time travel???

I sincerely hope there is no one on TERB who genuinely believes the IPCC travelled back to the 19th century, regardless of what you think I might have said about that possibility.

This speaks to Frankfooter's numerous problems. They go well beyond the fact he is functionally illiterate and innumerate and clearly doesn't know what the word "projected" means.

He is also a complete ignoramus about science at even the most basic level.

It's no wonder that after years of repeatedly posting the NASA graph of temperature anomalies, he revealed in post #96 that he doesn't even have a basic understanding of the data on that graph.

https://terb.cc/xenforo/threads/frankfooters-posts-from-2015-show-the-ipccs-predictions-of-global-warming-were-spectacularly-wrong.773259/page-5#post-7390253

 

[Frankfooter]

I "confirmed" the IPCC is capable of time travel???

Moviefan, if you were to predict that a tree that was one metre tall 5 years ago will grow to 50 metres tall in 25 years would you then say we are going back in time to predict the height the tree started at?
(ok, well we know you'd say yes because that's what you're doing with the IPCC projection)

The IPCC picked pre-industrial global temperatures as industrialization and mass burning of CO2 is what started climate change.
So any reasonable, non-science denier, would understand that you would use that as your base temperature and time period.

But a total science denier who can't calculate percentage ranges, can't add base temperatures to charts is more likely it appears, to get totally confused and think that means they were 'predicting' the base temperature they used in their chart.

They might look at the chart below, say they are proudly at the peak but that this chart is stupid because it predicts they are a low confidence, know nothing.

Please read this and see if you can understand it.

Base unit (measurement) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

 

[Moviefan-2]

The planet has been warming for hundreds of years and approx. 85% of the warming that led to the 1ºC increase over the late 19th century had occurred BEFORE the IPCC made its "projections."

Everyone was predicting the exact same thing. Furthermore, much of that warming occurred in a period (pre-1950) that the IPCC says cannot be attributed to human activity.

The fact the temperature did reach the 1ºC mark proves absolutely nothing!!

As per the scientific method, the test is whether the IPCC correctly predicted FUTURE temperature trends. Specifically, whether the planet is on track to see a temperature increase of 6ºC this century after the planet reached all-time records in emissions.

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

So far, the IPCC's predictions continue to be spectacularly wrong.

 

[Frankfooter]

The planet has been warming for hundreds of years and approx. 85% of the warming that led to the 1ºC increase over the late 19th century had occurred BEFORE the IPCC made its "projections."

Everyone was predicting the exact same thing. Furthermore, much of that warming occurred in a period (pre-1950) that the IPCC says cannot be attributed to human activity.

The fact the temperature did reach the 1ºC mark proves absolutely nothing!!

As per the scientific method, the test is whether the IPCC correctly predicted FUTURE temperature trends. Specifically, whether the planet is on track to see a temperature increase of 6ºC this century after the planet reached all-time records in emissions.

The planet has been warming for about 150 years, not 'hundreds'. Its been warming since the industrial revolution and the increased CO2 output that created.
Since the 1980's the warming has been accurately modelled by both Exxon's scientists and the IPCC, both who came to the same results roughly.
Exxon called the change 'catastrophic' in their internal memos then spent millions on disinformation.

1ºC is what the IPCC said would happen by now, which you have admitted is correct. They predicted a 0.2º per decade warming, which has happened over the decade and a half since their models were created.

So far, the IPCC's predictions continue to be spectacularly wrong.

No, you have admitted that their predictions are right on the money.
You said they predicted 1ºC and you also said we have hit 1ºC in warming.

Do you know the difference in global temperature between a thermal maximum and an ice age?
A thermal maximum would be about 4-6ºC warmer.
An ice age would be about 5ºC colder.

Warming the planet 2-3ºC more would be a massive change.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You said they predicted 1ºC and you also said we have hit 1ºC in warming.

Once again, we have clear proof that Frankfooter is functionally illiterate and functionally innumerate.

The overwhelming majority of the warming in the 1ºC temperature increase over the late 19th century occurred before the IPCC made its predictions. You don't make "projections" or predictions about the past.

What the IPCC predicted was a further increase of a little more than 0.1ºC - which proves absolutely nothing!

The test is whether the IPCC's prediction of a 6ºC temperature increase this century proves to be correct.

So far, the prediction continues to be spectacularly wrong.

 

[Moviefan-2]

By the way, Franky, it's now a matter of public record that I have said the fact the Earth's temperature increased to 1ºC over the late 19th century proves absolutely nothing.

It's also a matter of record that I have repeatedly said the IPCC's predictions continue to be spectacularly wrong.

If you post further comments that falsely assert that I said the IPCC's predictions were correct, the mods you keep threatening to run to will know you're lying.

 

[Frankfooter]

Once again, we have clear proof that Frankfooter is functionally illiterate and functionally innumerate.

The overwhelming majority of the warming in the 1ºC temperature increase over the late 19th century occurred before the IPCC made its predictions. You don't make "projections" or predictions about the past.

What the IPCC predicted was a further increase of a little more than 0.1ºC - which proves absolutely nothing!

Math fail again, moviefan.
The IPCC projected 0.2ºC warming per decade, which is pretty much exactly what we've experienced, as you have confirmed.
Claiming the increase was only 0.1ºC is a failure in high school level math, but that's to be expected from a science denier.

The test is whether the IPCC's prediction of a 6ºC temperature increase this century proves to be correct.

So far, the prediction continues to be spectacularly wrong.

The didn't predict 6ºC for this century either.
You're taking the outside range of projections and claiming its the median, another high school level math failure.

So far you're failing this course.