25 Years Of Predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point’

[Frankfooter]

The bet stands as it is. The bet is on the IPCC's prediction that the Earth's temperature in 2017 will be 0.2 degrees Celsius higher than it was in 2007.

(If you want to make a counter bet, based on your adjusted data, that the Earth's temperature will be 0.25 degrees Celsius higher in 2017 than it was in 2007, that's fine with me. That seems like an odd thing for you to do but I have no objections).

That's a wager we can track and return to when the results are known.

If you take the bet, here are the terms:

If you win, I have to purchase and read the following: http://www.amazon.com/Hockey-Stick-...5&sr=8-1&keywords=climate+wars+-+michael+mann

But if I win, you have to purchase and read the following: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/09...rd_t=36701&pf_rd_p=2088243002&pf_rd_i=desktop

Do we have a bet?

The IPCC numbers are a range now, from 0.15ºC to 0.35ºC a decade, as noted above, but tell you what. I'll take the bet with the older 2007 numbers but based on one condition, we do it now using todays information..

I say, why wait three years, lets do the bet now.

I'll bet you right now that the IPCC numbers are totally on the money, using today's numbers as our starting figures.
Will you take that bet right now?

I challenge you.

 

[Moviefan-2]

The IPCC numbers are a range now, from 0.15ºC to 0.35ºC a decade, as noted above, but tell you what. I'll take the bet with the older 2007 numbers but based on one condition, we do it now using todays information..

I say, why wait three years, lets do the bet now.

I'll bet you right now that the IPCC numbers are totally on the money, using today's numbers as our starting figures.
Will you take that bet right now?

I challenge you.

The challenge is meaningless until you spell out exactly what the bet is.

Furthermore, I'm only prepared to bet on whether the IPCC could predict results that weren't already known. So, no, we're not going to bet on whether the IPCC could make "predictions" in 2013 about 1994. And I'm not going to waste my time betting on results that won't be known for 20 years -- I want to collect well before then.

Spell out the exact wager and I'll tell you whether or not I accept it.

 

[Frankfooter]

The challenge is meaningless until you spell out exactly what the bet is.

Furthermore, I'm only prepared to bet on whether the IPCC could predict results that weren't already known. So, no, we're not going to bet on whether the IPCC could make "predictions" in 2013 about 1994. And I'm not going to waste my time betting on results that won't be known for 20 years -- I want to collect well before then.

Spell out the exact wager and I'll tell you whether or not I accept it.

I'm saying I will bet you that the predictions are right, but why wait.
We'll use todays numbers and go back 20 or 30 years and see if the older 2007 0.2ºC prediction numbers work starting from 1984 or 1994 to 2014?
Why wait?

If you are so positive that the IPCC predictions will never or can never be met, make the bet right now.
I'm on.

I challenge you.

If you lose, I pick a book for you to read, if I lose you can pick a book for me.
Fair?

 

[Moviefan-2]

We'll use todays numbers and go back 20 or 30 years and see if the older 2007 0.2ºC prediction numbers work starting from 1984 or 1994 to 2014?

I knew it!

So you want to make a bet about the IPCC's "predictions" for a period of time where -- for the majority of those years -- the IPCC already knew the results??

Not a chance.

Let's use the 2007 predictions and measure the results from 2007 on. If you want to measure the change from 2007 to 2014 and see how it compares with the predictions, that's fine with me.

If you want to amend the predictions to use updated criteria from 2013, that's fine with me, too.

Heck, I'll even let you use the most conservative predictions, which were based on reductions of man-made CO2 emissions -- even though we both know that's not actually what happened.

It makes no difference to me. I'll win, in any event.

What I won't do is let you backdate the predictions to include 23 or so years where the IPCC already knew the results.

Sorry, but "predicting" past events where the results were already known doesn't prove anything. The merits of the predictions can only be judged by assessing how well they could predict results that weren't yet known.

On that score, the IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly wrong.

 

[K Douglas]

The graphs these proponents of man made climate change are pretty and all but when they utilize manipulated or selective data it calls into question their integrity.

 

[FAST]

To ignore what we know of the history of climate change is pure arrogance.

The last time the Earth hit 400ppm CO2?

Scientists trying to determine how the Earth might change as temperatures rise often look back in time to a period around 3.6 million years ago called the middle Pliocene, when concentrations of carbon dioxide ranged from about 380 to 450 parts per million. (Today they are nearing 400.)

A study published yesterday in the journal Science analyzed the longest land-based sediment core ever taken in the Arctic and found that during this period, from 3.6 million to 2.2 million years ago, the area around the North Pole was much warmer and wetter than it is now.

In the middle Pliocene, summer temperatures in the Arctic were around 60 degrees Fahrenheit, which is about 14 degrees warmer than they are now, the study found.

Then it got colder,...so what's your point,...???

Besides,...that graph you keep on pasting,...proves that nobody knows what the hell is controlling the climate,...!!!

FAST

 

[Moviefan-2]

I'll tell you what, Frankfooter -- if you want to make a bet about the IPCC predictions for the period from 1994 to 2014, that's fine with me.

But we use the 1990 predictions, which were made before any results for that period were known. Since the IPCC predicted an increase of 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade (https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_spm.pdf), that means you'll be betting that there was a 0.6 degrees Celsius increase from 1994 to 2014.

To give you a sense of your odds, here's what you posted earlier (post 57):

Global temp anomaly was 0.29ºC in 1994 and in 2014 it was 0.68ºC.

If that's the bet you want to make, I'll take it.

 

[Frankfooter]

I'll tell you what, Frankfooter -- if you want to make a bet about the IPCC predictions for the period from 1994 to 2014, that's fine with me.

But we use the 1990 predictions, which were made before any results for that period were known. Since the IPCC predicted an increase of 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade (https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_spm.pdf), that means you'll be betting that there was a 0.6 degrees Celsius increase from 1994 to 2014.

To give you a sense of your odds, here's what you posted earlier (post 57):



If that's the bet you want to make, I'll take it.

Hey, look at that.
You can read.

So now you need to change the terms of this bet?

Of course, you realized that you lost it, so are trying to find another term that you can work it.
Digging back to 1994 is pretty lame, but what's also lame is trying to pick the only one of the scenarios that suits your argument, since the 1994 scenario also predicted 0.2ºC as the possible increase in scenario b).

Now you need to cherry pick the date and to cherry pick the scenario to win this argument?
That's very sad.

You tried to make a bet but didn't even realize you'd already lost it.
Own up.

Your claim you know better then the IPCC has been shown to be spectacularly wrong.
The IPCC predictions have been amazingly and depressingly accurate.
For the last 3 decades we've seen global temperature increases of about 0.2ºC, just as the IPCC predicted.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You tried to make a bet but didn't even realize you'd already lost it.
Own up.

Really?

I offered to bet you on the IPCC's predictions about current trends and gave you remarkably generous terms.

For example, I agreed to amend my bet to an end date of 2014 and said that I would even allow you to replace the 2007 predictions with the range that was used in 2013 (including allowing you to use low-end predictions that were based on reductions in man-made CO2 emissions that didn't actually occur).

Let's be very clear. The IPCC's 2007 predictions were for the next two decades, not about past trends: https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html. The bet will be on whether the IPCC correctly predicted future trends.

I also said I was willing to bet you on the IPCC's predictions for the period from 1994 to 2014, if that's your preference.

For that matter, since you insist Mann's work has been upheld by current trends, I'm willing to bet you on the predictions that were made in 2001 based on Mann's work. As I'm sure you know, the IPCC predicted in 2001 that warming in the 21st century would increase by at least 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade. That would mean we're betting that by the end of 2016, the Earth's temperature will be 0.45 degrees higher than it was in 2001. If that's the bet you want to make, you let me know.

I'm willing to bet on any period you like.

If you want to take one of the bets, you let me know. Then we'll review how the actual results compare with the predictions and determine who won.

(By the way, a 0.85 degrees Celsius increase over 77 years [1937 to 2014] does not represent an increase of 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade.)

 

[Moviefan-2]

Digging back to 1994 is pretty lame, but what's also lame is trying to pick the only one of the scenarios that suits your argument, since the 1994 scenario also predicted 0.2ºC as the possible increase in scenario b).

Now you need to cherry pick the date and to cherry pick the scenario to win this argument?
That's very sad.

Actually, the 1994 bet was your idea. And I'm not cherry-picking anything.

The 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade prediction was the IPCC's "business as usual" scenario based on greenhouse gases remaining at the same level. In fact, over the period we're discussing, there's been an increase in greenhouse gases. Some 25 per cent of all man-made CO2 emissions ever released into the atmosphere were produced in the past 18 years.

If the IPCC had been right, the bet should actually be for an amount that is higher than 0.3 degrees Celsius. But I'm happy to leave it where it is, as I'll still win the bet.

 

[Frankfooter]

Really?

I offered to bet you on the IPCC's predictions about current trends and gave you remarkably generous terms.

You did, the problem is that your bet failed because your information comes from denier sites that are wrong and out of date.
The fact is that you just admitted that the IPCC was 'spectacularly right' about their predictions.

You can go back three decades from today and their predictions are right on the money.
And yet you still claim they are wrong?

You are acting like a weasel, trying to change the terms of this imaginary bet, because your initial claim has been shown to be total bullshit.

The IPCC was correct in their 0.2ºC predictions.
Admit it.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You did, the problem is that your bet failed because your information comes from denier sites that are wrong and out of date.
The fact is that you just admitted that the IPCC was 'spectacularly right' about their predictions.

You can go back three decades from today and their predictions are right on the money.
And yet you still claim they are wrong?

You are acting like a weasel, trying to change the terms of this imaginary bet, because your initial claim has been shown to be total bullshit.

The IPCC was correct in their 0.2ºC predictions.
Admit it.

The "business as usual" prediction in 1990 was an increase of 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade, not 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade.

The 2001 IPCC report also predicted increases of at least 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade under existing emissions levels.

The 2007 prediction about 0.2 degrees Celsius was for the "next two decades". If you think that's correct, then you should take my original bet. If you want to amend the bet to measure how things stood at the end of 2014, that's fine with me.

 

[Moviefan-2]

By the way, how is the IPCC able to predict various scenarios for the next 20 years based on differing emissions levels? What happened to the 40- to 75-year lag time? :biggrin1:

 

[Frankfooter]

The "business as usual" prediction in 1990 was an increase of 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade, not 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade.

The 2001 IPCC report also predicted increases of at least 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade under existing emissions levels.

The 2007 prediction about 0.2 degrees Celsius was for the "next two decades". If you think that's correct, then you should take my original bet. If you want to amend the bet to measure how things stood at the end of 2014, that's fine with me.

First, its wrong to base all your arguments off of old reports. The science gets better each year, the models get more complex and more theories about the interactions of climate forcings and effects make each report that much better and more accurate. It shows that you are dishonest.

But as for those older predictions you're not looking at the full time frame of their predictions.

They predicted those increases, within a range and based on world CO2 output possibilities, over a century.
A century.

Now note that that all the graphs showing CO2 are looking exponential, not linear and remember there is a lag between CO2 hitting the atmosphere and the climate change it causes.

That means that the only proper way to judge the full accuracy is not based on one year, 10 years or even 20 years of study, but after a century. Which means we are quite likely in for an increase in the rate of temperature climbing over the next few decades and that the average decadal increase by 2100 is likely going to fall between 0.2ºC and something higher, given that we have not reduced our CO2 output.

If you understood the science you should be shitting your pants.
But since you don't, you really should take all your holdings, sell them and invest in Almond trees in California.
Because someone like you, who really thinks they are smarter then 97% of scientists who study climate can really make a killing investing in desert orchards.


As for your 2007 bet, you already lost.
And to prove that your bet is fixed, based only on cherry picking dates, I'll give you two other dates to choose from that require us not to wait 2.5 years.


Pick either as start dates:
1985, using a three decade average coming into play the end of this year, 2015
1986, using the same three decade average coming into play the end of 2016

Are you willing to take either of those bets?
Or is your bet totally based on a chicken shit cherry picking date?

 

[Frankfooter]

By the way, how is the IPCC able to predict various scenarios for the next 20 years based on differing emissions levels? What happened to the 40- to 75-year lag time? :biggrin1:

Wow.
You are stupid.

How many cars have you run into with your thinking that if you hit the brakes now the car is stopped immediately?
How can you drive a car without understanding that even slamming the brakes doesn't make you stop on a dime?

 

[Moviefan-2]

They predicted those increases, within a range and based on world CO2 output possibilities, over a century.
A century.

The IPCC said in 2007 that it was projecting the Earth's temperature would increase by 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade "for the next two decades":

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

I say that prediction is spectacularly wrong and I'm willing to bet on it.

If you think I'm wrong, take the bet.

 

[Frankfooter]

The IPCC said in 2007 that it was projecting the Earth's temperature would increase by 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade "for the next two decades":

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

I say that prediction is spectacularly wrong and I'm willing to bet on it.
.

By refusing to use two other dates that would come to term earlier, you just proved your argument is based on cherry picking dates.
There is only one year you are willing make that bet on, isn't there?
You won't make it off of bets that come to term this year, next year or the year after and only will make it on 2007.

That's the definition of cherry picking.

You lose.

The IPCC has been sadly shown to be spectacularly correct.

 

[nobody123]

The IPCC has been sadly shown to be spectacularly correct.

The hell they have. And I for one think the Emperor's new clothes are snazzy as hell.

 

[Samantha Jones]

Watch cowspiracy.

 

[Moviefan-2]

By refusing to use two other dates that would come to term earlier, you just proved your argument is based on cherry picking dates.
There is only one year you are willing make that bet on, isn't there?
You won't make it off of bets that come to term this year, next year or the year after and only will make it on 2007.

That's the definition of cherry picking.

You lose.

The IPCC has been sadly shown to be spectacularly correct.

Go back and read the thread. I didn't "refuse" anything.

I agreed to your proposal to make a bet based on the 1990 prediction (which we already know was wrong).

I also said I was willing to make a bet on the 2001 predictions that were based on Mann's work -- and I'm willing to set the end of this year as the end date (if you can figure out the math to set it for the end of 2014, then I'll happily take that bet).

I even said I would let you amend the 2007 prediction to use 2013 numbers, and let you lower the prediction to 0.15 degrees Celsius from 0.2 degrees Celsius (even though there was actually a significant increase in man-made CO2 emissions).

You don't want to make any of the discussed wagers because you know the IPCC's predictions are wrong. It's that simple.