25 Years Of Predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point’

[fuji]

Let's not cherry pick at all: a graph of average global temperature over the past thousand years looks like a hockey stick, shooting upwards at the industrial revolution and moving strictly upwards over any statistically significant number of data points.

Moreover researchers have gone further than correlation and gathered enough evidence to prove that this isn't simply a correlation, human activity has caused a significant increase in average global temperature.

Finally, the best predictive theories we have imply that temperature increase will continue, and that we will continue to drive it upwards. You will point out there are other theories, but no other theory had generated hypotheses with as much proven predictive value as the current consensus group of theories have.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Let's not cherry pick at all: a graph of average global temperature over the past thousand years looks like a hockey stick, shooting upwards at the industrial revolution and moving strictly upwards over any statistically significant number of data points.

Indeed. That graph was used by the IPCC to predict that temperatures in the early years of the 21st century would continue to go "shooting upwards."

Not exactly the "flattening" that actually occurred.

 

[fuji]

Indeed. That graph was used by the IPCC to predict that temperatures in the early years of the 21st century would continue to go "shooting upwards."

Not exactly the "flattening" that actually occurred.

And their prediction remains the best prediction we have. Their data is better. Their model has fewer holes.

Your idiotic claim is that a prediction has to be perfect in some mathematically impossible sense before you will believe it -- you're just like smokers circa 1970 who had been shown good data that smoking was harmful, but skulked around dredging up implausible alternative theories and insisting that scientists were wrong.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Your idiotic claim is that a prediction has to be perfect in some mathematically impossible sense before you will believe it...

You're just repeating talking points. I never said any such thing.

The issue isn't that the models aren't "perfect." The issue is that the models have a 98 per cent failure rate (according to the University of Hamburg):

http://www.globalwarming.org/2013/08/13/can-climate-models-explain-the-15-year-slowdown-in-warming/

The models have been almost perfect -- perfectly wrong.

 

[Frankfooter]

You're just repeating talking points. I never said any such thing.

The issue isn't that the models aren't "perfect." The issue is that the models have a 98 per cent failure rate (according to the University of Hamburg):

http://www.globalwarming.org/2013/08/13/can-climate-models-explain-the-15-year-slowdown-in-warming/

The models have been almost perfect -- perfectly wrong.

You are the one repeating talking points, which is noted by your inability to answer simple direct questions.
Such as:
1) Do you think the follow graph is going up or staying level?
2) There are small flat areas and small areas with sharp increases, how do any of those make you think the graph is not going up?
3) How can you claim there is no more increase in warming when 14 of the 15 warmest years on record have occurred since 2000?

Why can you not answer those simple questions?
Why can you only repeat talking points?

 

[FAST]

You are the one repeating talking points, which is noted by your inability to answer simple direct questions.
Such as:
1) Do you think the follow graph is going up or staying level?
2) There are small flat areas and small areas with sharp increases, how do any of those make you think the graph is not going up?
3) How can you claim there is no more increase in warming when 14 of the 15 warmest years on record have occurred since 2000?

Why can you not answer those simple questions?
Why can you only repeat talking points?

How many times must you be told the same thing,...this graph confirms that the increase in temps shown are NOT caused by man.

This assuming you can actually read it,...???

FAST

 

[red]

How many times must you be told the same thing,...this graph confirms that the increase in temps shown are NOT caused by man.

This assuming you can actually read it,...???

FAST

That's right. Man has only been on earth since 1950 when we were brought here by princess leia

 

[FAST]

That's right. Man has only been on earth since 1950 when we were brought here by princess leia

At which point the graph flattened for 25 years,...after steadily increasing for 50 odd years,...thanks,...proves my point.

FAST

 

[Moviefan-2]

You are the one repeating talking points, which is noted by your inability to answer simple direct questions.
Such as:
1) Do you think the follow graph is going up or staying level?
2) There are small flat areas and small areas with sharp increases, how do any of those make you think the graph is not going up?
3) How can you claim there is no more increase in warming when 14 of the 15 warmest years on record have occurred since 2000?

For a guy who gets his nose out of joint when someone calls him a liar, you sure don't seem to have any reservations about making statements that you know to be false.

Regarding questions one and two, the statement that there has been a "flattening" of the Earth's temperatures over the past 15 years was made by NASA, not me.

NASA is the same organization that produced your graph. If you think NASA's interpretation of the graph is wrong, say so. But stop falsely attributing NASA's quotes to me.

Regarding question No. 3, you know it is a falsehood to say that I refuse to answer that question. I have answered it several times.

Indeed, it really isn't all that difficult to understand. The Earth's temperature plateaued at about the turn of the century. It has remained plateaued at that level ever since.

Since the temperature is plateaued at the level it hit at the turn of the century, it would stand to reason that most of the warmest temperatures would be in the 21st century.

 

[Frankfooter]

Regarding questions one and two, the statement that there has been a "flattening" of the Earth's temperatures over the past 15 years was made by NASA, not me.

Those claims were previously made by cherry picking the 1997, super El Nino, year as the start date and counting for 15 years. Yet one only has to look at the graph and understand that 2014 was the warmest year ever to realize that those claims are already old and out of date. You need some new talking points, some that aren't old, tired and wrong.

NASA is the same organization that produced your graph. If you think NASA's interpretation of the graph is wrong, say so. But stop falsely attributing NASA's quotes to me.

Nasa said it was part of the longterm warming trend.
That's what the IPCC predicted, a long term warming trend.

Indeed, it really isn't all that difficult to understand. The Earth's temperature plateaued at about the turn of the century. It has remained plateaued at that level ever since.

No it hasn't.
2014 was the warmest year on record.
This March was the warmest March on record.
This April was the second warmest April on record.
How is 'plateauing'?


You still can't answer this question.

Look at this graph and tell us how you really think this shows a line that is not going up?
(and I'll keep posting this graph until you give a real answer).

 

[Moviefan-2]

Those claims were previously made by cherry picking the 1997, super El Nino, year as the start date and counting for 15 years.

So, now you're accusing NASA of "cherry picking." Interesting.

Look at this graph and tell us how you really think this shows a line that is not going up?
(and I'll keep posting this graph until you give a real answer).

Look at the index on the left and the miniscule size of the changes in the 21st century.

Next, do a little homework on the margin of error for the data points being plotted.

The answer is this: The graph does not show any statistically significant increase for the past 15 years. Indeed, NASA -- which produced the graph -- describes that period as "flattening."

Furthermore, you're evading the real point. Even if you think there was a miniscule bit of warming in the 21st century, it doesn't change the fact that the predictions of how man-made C02 emissions would affect the Earth's temperature have been spectacularly wrong.

Now it's your turn: When I am going to get a serious answer to the question about the period from 1940 to 1970, when there was a huge increase in man-made C02 emissions. Your graph shows no change -- in fact, there was a slight cooling during that period.

Your previous answer was pure idiocy and completely contradicted the IPCC's assessments of how greenhouse gases affect the Earth's temperature. If you ever come up with an answer, be sure to let us know.

 

[Moviefan-2]

As a reminder, here's where Michael Mann and the IPCC claimed temperatures would be heading.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Moviefan-2]

Here's the actual NASA graph that shows the Earth's temperature in recent decades.

For the most recent 10 years, it only shows a change of 0.02 degrees Celsius.

I agree with NASA on this point -- a statistically meaningless change of only 0.02 degrees Celsius over 10 years can definitely be described as a "flattening" of temperatures. The margin of error for these data points is much greater than 0.02 degrees.

2014 was no warmer than 2005.

 

[Frankfooter]

For the most recent 10 years, it only shows a change of 0.02 degrees Celsius.

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

Check the numbers from that chart.
2014 = 0.68ºC anomaly
2004 = 0.52ºC anomaly

That's a difference of 0.16ºC over the last decade.

And its a pattern.
2014 = 0.68ºC anomaly
1994 = 0.29ºC anomaly

That's a difference of 0.19ºC per decade over the last two decades.


I keep telling you that your talking points are old and wrong.
Look at the new figures.

 

[Moviefan-2]

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

Check the numbers from that chart.
2014 = 0.68ºC anomaly
2004 = 0.52ºC anomaly

That's a difference of 0.16ºC over the last decade.

And its a pattern.
2014 = 0.68ºC anomaly
1994 = 0.29ºC anomaly

That's a difference of 0.19ºC per decade over the last two decades.


I keep telling you that your talking points are old and wrong.
Look at the new figures.

Talk about cherry picking!

Fine -- for the most recent nine years, there has only been a change of 0.02 degrees Celsius.

Or go back to 2002 -- Over the 12-year period from 2002 to 2014, there has only a change of 0.06 degrees -- about one-quarter of what the IPCC predicted.

The key point is this: 2014 was no warmer than 2005. That's why NASA says there has been a "flattening" of the Earth's temperature over the past 15 years.

(By the way, if you're going to use 1994 as your starting point, remember that the IPCC at that time was predicting an average increase of at least 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade. Even when you cherry pick dates, you still show the IPCC was off by more than 30 per cent).

 

[Frankfooter]

Talk about cherry picking!

Fine -- for the most recent nine years,

You are the one doing the cherry picking here.
You said the last decade and won't admit you are wrong, so now have to squirm and try to cheat your ass off to say 'no, I meant the last 9 years'.

That's the very definition of cherry picking.

(By the way, if you're going to use 1994 as your starting point, remember that the IPCC at that time was predicting an average increase of 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade. Even when you cherry pick dates, you still show the IPCC was off by 50 per cent).

Wrong again, they said an average of 0.3ºC per decade over a century, but in an exponential curve, so the first few decades would be lower. You can't even really read the reports, can you?


So stop cherry picking and admit this:
There was a global temperature anomaly of 0.16ºC over the last decade.

The IPCC is correct.
You are wrong.

You are losing the bet and totally wrong about your claims about global warming.

 

[Moviefan-2]

So stop cherry picking and admit this:
There was a global temperature anomaly of 0.16ºC over the last decade.

Really?

So why isn't the red line for the five-year running mean heading upwards in the same direction it was headed during the 1990s?

And why does NASA say the Earth's temperature has been "flattening" for the past 15 years? That's not what the IPCC predicted.

Furthermore, why did the University of Hamburg conclude that more than 98 per cent of the models had failed to predict temperature trends in the 21st century?

You can play all the games you want. The IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly wrong, and you know it.

 

[fuji]

You're just repeating talking points. I never said any such thing.

The issue isn't that the models aren't "perfect." The issue is that the models have a 98 per cent failure rate (according to the University of Hamburg):

http://www.globalwarming.org/2013/08/13/can-climate-models-explain-the-15-year-slowdown-in-warming/

The models have been almost perfect -- perfectly wrong.

Only if you demand a level of precision that is unreasonable. You entire argument boils down to different ways of saying that a short term local plateau isn't predicted by a model that doesn't have that level of precision.

The prediction is a linear one formed from regressing data to a straight line over long time periods. It is not precise enough to model a polynomial that can form plateaus or other second order effects and evaluating a linear prediction based on its ability to forecast inflection in a curve is just stupid.

You are substituting ignorance for argument. You are also confusing precision and accuracy.

 

[Frankfooter]

Really?

So why isn't the red line for the five-year running mean heading upwards in the same direction it was headed during the 1990s?

I'll try to make this as simple as possible for you.

Its a squiggly line.

There is enough variability from global events (El Nino, volcanoes, extreme weather, ice melts, jet streams....) that the line is never straight.
You can find squiggly bits that go up very fast and a couple of squiggly bits where it doesn't, that's the nature of the data.
But only a fool looks at that chart and says its not a chart that depicts a line that is going up.
The red line also doesn't have the last year or so of data included, if you noticed the very last point is up quite a bit higher then the end of the red line, when that gets updated you will see that red line going back up again.

Why can't you understand that?
Why can't you admit this?

There was a global temperature anomaly of 0.16ºC over the last decade.


The IPCC has been spectacularly correct.

 

[K Douglas]

Cherry picking is what the climate change advocates do. They talk about a scientific consensus somehow in their mind they think that 97% of scientists agree that man is the primary cause of climate change. It's been shown to be an extremely misleading figure.

http://business.financialpost.com/f...ensus-among-the-misinformed-is-not-worth-much

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/388535/crumbling-climate-change-consensus-john-fund

http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-t...t-over-man-made-global-warming-claims/5403284

Now I know the advocates are going to argue that these studies were funded by big oil or other corporate interests like Koch Industries, yet they fail to realize that their vaunted global warming alarmists are funded by a FAR bigger movement - the United Nations. Supported by other green movement interests like George Soros' Open Society Institute (Brookings, PCAP, Climate Policy Initiative), 350.org and Al Gore's Alliance For Climate Projection and Generation Investment Management.

They use climate change alarmism as part of a much broader movement that seeks social justice. Disenfranchised Marxist socialists and Communists have now taken up the cause and that does the movement a great disservice.