Global Warming. Fact or grossly exaggerated??

[groggy]

I suggest you re-read my posting history and try to learn something, rather than looking for ways to score cheap political (not scientific) points. I didn't say the IPCC shouldn't advocate. I don't care what the IPCC does. What I said is that scientists shouldn't be engaged in political advocacy. True scientists must do everything they can to try to eliminate biases from their work. They most definitely shouldn't be focused exclusively on trying to find "evidence" to support a political position. They should be looking at all the evidence to learn the truth about how the natural world works. If the IPCC wanted to be taken seriously as a body that speaks for science, then it shouldn't be involved in political/activist advocacy.

More bullshit.

The IPCC is only a handful of people who work entirely with peer assessed work that they have no hand in. All they do is compile the work of thousands of scientists from over a hundred countries. There is absolutely no way they could control either the research they are handed or twist it to report anything more then the peer assessed, evidenced based papers say.

Your conspiracy theories come from lobbyists whose only goal is to seed dissent so their funders don't lose a shitful of money should we do something about climate change. These theories are unfounded and totally ridiculous.

All legit science backs these findings.
All.

This is the findings of all evidence based research.

It has been shown to be spectacularly correct.

 

[Moviefan-2]

There is absolutely no way they could control either the research they are handed or twist it to report anything more then the peer assessed, evidenced based papers say.

They may not be able to "control" it. But how they "report" the findings in the Summary for Policy Makers is another matter altogether.

Remember the IPCC's claim that the data from 1951 to 2010 "agrees" with the predictions? Absolute nonsense. Depending on which IPCC predictions you're looking at, the IPCC was off by anywhere from 50 to 60 per cent. And that's for a time period where most of the results were already known before the IPCC made its predictions.

Your own graph shows the IPCC's predictions were spectacularly wrong. Are you now saying that the graph you posted was inaccurate?

 

[blackrock13]

First of all, I'm glad you're no longer disputing that climate can be predicted for a year or two ahead. Just as the NOAA site has done.

Second of all, I never asked you for the exact weather for a particular date. I asked you whether Toronto would have a generally hot, cold or normal summer.

The answer whether Florida will have a hot, cold or normal summer can also be found on NOAA website if you bothered to look. I'm going out tonight, but I'll post all the information tomorrow morning complete with graphs and everything. And remember, these are not my predictions, these are the NOAA predictions.

Have a good night dodgy groggy. I'll let this sink in for a bit

Did you miss the two words 'Experimental Unofficial' in the title of your screen shot? Of course you did.

 

[AK-47]

Did you miss the two words `Experimental Unofficial` in the title of your screen shot? Of course you did

And do you have reading comprehension fail??!! Of course you do:

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-exaggerated&p=4879421&viewfull=1#post4879421

It says "Experimental Unofficial Two-class Monthly & Seasonal Climate Outlooks". I guess they named it unofficial just in case they get it wrong and they can`t be held responsible.....LOL

Keep digging your dummy-hole deeper, rockie. You almost make it too easy for me

 

[groggy]

They may not be able to "control" it. But how they "report" the findings in the Summary for Policy Makers is another matter altogether.

Remember the IPCC's claim that the data from 1951 to 2010 "agrees" with the predictions? Absolute nonsense. Depending on which IPCC predictions you're looking at, the IPCC was off by anywhere from 50 to 60 per cent. And that's for a time period where most of the results were already known before the IPCC made its predictions.

Your own graph shows the IPCC's predictions were spectacularly wrong. Are you now saying that the graph you posted was inaccurate?

More bullshit.
They didn't 'predict' the global surface temperature increases from 1951 until their first report, did they?
If you want to talk about predictions, you have to start from the date they made the predictions.

You could start with the first real prediction, Hansen in 1988, which was spectacularly accurate despite being a fairly early model without many forcings included.
The IPCC 1990 first prediction was off a bit, but not bad, 1995's prediction very close to reality, as was the 2001 prediction and even the 2007 prediction.
In short, they are improving the science, the modelling and the predictions, but they are really quite good.
If you want to read a real analysis of how well they did, read a true scientific paper on the matter and don't just get your info from your oil lobbyist bloggers.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n4/full/nclimate1763.html

Again, you ignore the basics.
All legit science accepts that the climate is changing.
All legit science accepts that more greenhouse gases will increase climate change.
All legit science accepts the fact that humans have increase the amount of CO2 and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
All legit science accepts the work of the IPCC as the summation of all real scientific research on the matter.


The predictions have been spectacularly accurate, with the planet having just experienced 13 of the 14 warmest years on record, all of which occurred since 2000.

 

[Moviefan-2]

They didn't 'predict' the global surface temperature increases from 1951 until their first report, did they?

Damn good point. :thumb: If it wasn't for the fact that you're so obstinate about your faith, I might be tempted to think you're on the verge of making a breakthrough.

That is truly an excellent point you make about the flaw in using 1951 as the starting point for measuring the results against the predictions. There's just one small detail that you overlooked. The 1951 starting point was set by the IPCC, in its recent Summary for Policy Makers -- not by me.

I agree with you. Given that the IPCC only started making predictions in 1990, why would the IPCC say we should use 1951 as the starting date for measuring its predictions against the results? It seems intellectually dishonest.

The Summary for Policy Makers is all about spin. You know it. You've spotted the problem yourself (although you wrongly attribute the 1951 selection to me).

The spin isn't working for the IPCC, though. Most serious observers know there is a problem with the models and the predictions, given that the predictions have been so spectacularly wrong.

The IPCC can try to spin its way out of this by using 1951 as a starting point (although even that date doesn't really help the IPCC, for those who know how the predictions compare with the results). But no amount of spin is going to work.

The IPCC should come clean and acknowledge there are serious problems with the models.

 

[AK-47]

Get ready groggy, I'm preparing a nice little post that'll POWN you 6 ways till sunday

 

[blackrock13]

Get ready groggy, I'm preparing a nice little post that'll POWN you 6 ways till sunday

If it's anything like your Experimental Unofficial Climate Forecast, I can't wait.

 

[AK-47]

If it's anything like your Experimental Unofficial Climate Forecast, I can't wait

That was their 2-year forecast.
Their short-term climate forecasts are not experimental, they are labeled "Official Forecasts"

Also dumbrock, what does it say on their website?? Does it not say "Monthly & Seasonal Climate Outlooks"??
What do you think they mean by the word "climate", rockie??

See here: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/long_range/two_class.php

 

[groggy]

I agree with you. Given that the IPCC only started making predictions in 1990, why would the IPCC say we should use 1951 as the starting date for measuring its predictions against the results? It seems intellectually dishonest.

They don't, and for you to claims such shows you are either intellectually dishonest or stupid.

They've been looking at the history of our climate, comparing forcings and greenhouse gas amounts with records. They compared real world records to models as a way of testing the validity of models. Input the records and forcings we know into the models and you can see which ones give the most realistic results. Its part of that process they like to call the scientific method.

1951 is use as a half century mark, they also use 1901 as a data point as well as 2001. Those dates are used to assess models accuracy.

The chart with temperature rise from 1951 clearly shows a warming planet.

 

[groggy]

That was their 2-year forecast.
Their short-term climate forecasts are not experimental, they are labeled "Official Forecasts"

Right.
Like 'weather' forecasts.


By the way, while you are on a roll with your pedantic concerns, I've got a really major one that you should look into.
I think its time you looked into the needless slaughter of babies for cosmetic concerns.
Yes, its time for you to start a campaign to end the use of 'baby oil', just imagine how many babies are killed a year for this one product.

Because yes, they do use the word 'baby' on their products, so it must be so.

 

[AK-47]

Right.
Like 'weather' forecasts.


By the way, while you are on a roll with your pedantic concerns, I've got a really major one that you should look into.
I think its time you looked into the needless slaughter of babies for cosmetic concerns.
Yes, its time for you to start a campaign to end the use of 'baby oil', just imagine how many babies are killed a year for this one product.

Because yes, they do use the word 'baby' on their products, so it must be so

Ever heard of Short-Term Climate Prediction?? Whole books have been written on it.

Look here, dummy: http://www.amazon.ca/Empirical-Methods-Short-Term-Climate-Prediction/dp/0199202788

This clear and accessible text describes the methods underlying short-term climate prediction at time scales of 2 weeks to a year

 

[blackrock13]

That was their 2-year forecast.
Their short-term climate forecasts are not experimental, they are labeled "Official Forecasts"

Also dumbrock, what does it say on their website?? Does it not say "Monthly & Seasonal Climate Outlooks"??
What do you think they mean by the word "climate", rockie??

See here: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/long_range/two_class.php

....and right at the top of the page you linked to is this;

[SIZE=+0]Experimental Unofficial Two-class Monthly & Seasonal Climate Outlooks[/SIZE]

You are such a maroon.

 

[blackrock13]

and if you can make out the X and Y axis ket us know. It makes a difference.

 

[Moviefan-2]

They don't...They compared real world records to models as a way of testing the validity of models.

So they don't. And yet they do? Curious.

Your original point was valid. How does the record from 1951 to 1990 show the "validity" of the models, when the IPCC already knew the results before the computer-model predictions were made.

The only records that would confirm the "validity" of the models would be to compare the record with the predictions that were made for the period after 1990.

It doesn't matter much, though. Either way, you still find the predictions were spectacularly wrong. The difference was the IPCC guessed (correctly, I suspect) that most believers wouldn't question the statement that the trend from 1951 "agrees" with the predictions. In fact, it does no such thing.

What the IPCC was saying was simply spin. Deep down, I suspect you know that.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Ever heard of Short-Term Climate Prediction??

I sure have. The IPCC used to be a big fan of such things. Until reality took a bit of a detour...

 

[blackrock13]

I sure have. The IPCC used to be a big fan of such things. Until reality took a bit of a detour...

Are you sure he doesn't mean 'weather'? He did before.

 

[AK-47]

....and right at the top of the page you linked to is this;



You are such a maroon.

Easy tiger, I linked the wrong page.

Here's the right one: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/90day/

It says right in large print: "Three-month OFFICIAL forecasts"

 

[blackrock13]

Easy tiger, I linked the wrong page.

Here's the right one: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/90day/

It says right in large print: "Three-month OFFICIAL forecasts"

We all do it once in a while, no biggie

Wow, I doubt the forecasts could be any more generic; only three choices, normal, higher, or lower, no numbers no ranges and not even margins for error. Not something I would call accurate, dependable or meaningful. You might, but I doubt anyone with a triple digit IQ would.

 

[AK-47]

And now back to the other dumbass, groggy.

You asked for short-term climate forecasts. Here you go, Florida's short-term climate forecast for summer of 2014:

Beginning of spring/summer: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/long_range/seasonal.php?lead=1
Middle summer: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/long_range/seasonal.php?lead=2
Later summer: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/long_range/seasonal.php?lead=3
Towards end of summer: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/long_range/seasonal.php?lead=4

Graphs clearly show Florida should generally have a warmer then normal summer:

Now why can't you do the same groggy, when I asked you to predict how warm (or cold) Toronto's summer in 2014 would be?? Answer the question, groggy!!!