Hey, at least you're not arguing anymore that short-term climate forecasts dont exist, and that they are called weather forecasts.
Thats progress for a dumbass like you.
Global Warming. Fact or grossly exaggerated??
- Thread starter AK-47
- Start date
Thats progress for a dumbass like you.
The link comes for the National Weather Centre and simply give three parameters, higher, lower, same, wow.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 grorgy, when I asked you to predict how warm (or cold) Toronto's summer in 2014 would be?? Answer the question, groggy!!!
I gave you an earlier forecast without calculating anything and have as good a chance of being right as these. Get back to us when the forecast comes around.
Right, and if anything that should be easier to predict because I'm not asking for an exact temperature average.
All I'm asking is whether we'll have a warmer summer or not, you can be off by 1 degree, 2 degrees or more, whatever you like. Just tell us if we'll have warm, cold or normal 2014 Toronto summer.
You and groggy claim to understand all the science, you should have no problem answering that
By seeing how closely the models followed the records. If you make a model and input the data from a time where you know the results and the results are way different from the records you know the model needs work. If the results followed the historic records then the model shows promise.
Its pretty basic, even you should be able to understand that one.
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.
Here you go, from AR5.
They show that the real world results are within the range of their predictions but at the low end, but as they also say:
p61
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf
Again, focusing on one 15 year, cherry picked range is dishonest.
Their report is quite honest.
You can read all the papers it was based on and assess the research and data for yourself (if you were smart enough).
Gee, I must have missed that prediction. Could you please post it again, or post the link??
Apparently you don't, because I had to explain to you what short-term climate forecasts were. They are not weather forecasts. Weather forecasts are usually up to 15 days long. A short-term climate forecast is taken over a few months (usually 1 or more seasons, or a year or 2).
In this case all I ask from groggy is a short-term climate forecast for 2014 Toronto summer, which he still hasnt answered yet.
So lets say (for example) the average temperature for Toronto in summer is 20.5 degrees, I want groggy to tell me if in 2015 we'll be below, about normal or above 20.5 degrees.
Heck, I'll even give him a plus/minus 1 degree margin of error. Thats only fair.
So whadda you say groggy??!!
Groggy, you're on the verge of another insight. This time, let's hope you follow through.
It's too bad you were so quick in the early days of this thread to dismiss the lecture by Michael Crichton, because he nailed this issue perfectly.
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf
No one questions the ability of the computer models to analyze existing temperature records, and to compare changes in the Earth's temperature to increases in man-made CO2 (the accuracy of tree ring proxies are another matter).
The dispute is over the claim that the models can predict future changes in the Earth's climate.
The predictions about the future are the only ones that matter. And, so far, those predictions have been spectacularly wrong.
If he's anything like the IPCC, he'll say the answer to that question is: yes.
And if the average temperature in 2015 is above average, below average, or at the average, he'll follow the IPCC's lead and say that proves the premise of global warming is sound.
Short term climate forecasts are simply weather reports, nothing more. The climate will remain the same, Dfb for some time to come.Gee, I must have missed that prediction. Could you please post it again, or post the link??
Apparently you don't, because I had to explain to you what short-term climate forecasts were. They are not weather forecasts. Weather forecasts are usually up to 15 days long. A short-term climate forecast is taken over a few months (usually 1 or more seasons, or a year or 2).
In this case all I ask from groggy is a short-term climate forecast for 2014 Toronto summer, which he still hasnt answered yet.
So lets say (for example) the average temperature for Toronto in summer is 20.5 degrees, I want groggy to tell me if in 2015 we'll be below, about normal or above 20.5 degrees.
Heck, I'll even give him a plus/minus 1 degree margin of error. Thats only fair.
So whadda you say groggy??!!
While I'm flattered that you so care about my opinion I would like to point out that I am not a meteorologist.So lets say (for example) the average temperature for Toronto in summer is 20.5 degrees, I want groggy to tell me if in 2015 we'll be below, about normal or above 20.5 degrees.
Heck, I'll even give him a plus/minus 1 degree margin of error. Thats only fair.
So whadda you say groggy??!!
But if you'd like me to guess on what I think the Toronto weather will be like this summer, I can make a guess for you.
And you take as the basis of this claim a work of fiction?
Right.
I just gave you charts that assessed the accuracy of the IPCC models, as the IPCC does regularly.
They are very open and fair with assessments of their own work, you only have to read their reports to understand that they assess how solid their models are and how close their predictions are.
In the scientific community their work is known for being extra conservative in their predictions because the enormous amount of money the fossil fuel industries are spending to make them look bad.
I'm trying to remember, were you one of the ones defending Ford through all the crackhead scandal?
Do you also smoke and think its good for your health?
Do you have a history of falling for stories from crackheads, lobbyists and bloggers?
And how far does the temperature of the planet have to rise before you'd accept that you were wrong and played for a fool?
"Accuracy"?
Your own graph showed the IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly wrong (even worse when you consider that two-thirds of the results were already known before the IPCC made its predictions).
As for Crichton, he was a fiction writer but his lecture on global warming and the belief that your beloved computer models can predict the future wasn't fiction. Indeed, it was spot on -- something we'll likely never be able to say about the IPCC. :biggrin1:
You keep focusing on small time frames, and in particular one cherry picked date, but miss the fact that the long term predictions have so far been quite good.
But what else can you expect from someone whose research goes as far as fiction writers and creationists.
As the graphs and data has shown, the planet is getting warmer as we put more greenhouse gases in the air.
Not so. The long-term analysis shows the IPCC's predictions were off by 50 per cent to 60 per cent (depending on which prediction you look at).
And the "cherry picking" slur is baseless. All of the dates I examined were from the IPCC's report. The dates were selected by the IPCC, not by me.
Not consistently.
There have been periods where greenhouse gases increased and the planet got warmer.
There have also been periods where greenhouse gases increased and the planet didn't get warmer (including the period we are in now).
False.
From the AR5 summary:
And with 13 of the 14 warmest years having occurred since 2000, that claim of yours is shown to be blatantly false.
Even your lobbyists and bloggers where you copied this from know enough to argue that the 'pause', cherry picked dates that they are, still show an increase in global surface temperature, just not as fast as the previous decades.
Admit that statement is false.
They published those dates as a response to cherry picking on your bloggers and lobbyists sites, and they specifically argue that using those dates alone is bad science.
Your lobbyists picked those dates, not the IPCC.
According to the IPCC, there was no statistically significant change at all in the 15-year period from 1998 to 2012, despite the fact there were significant increases in man-made CO2.
In fact, the IPCC tried to use the 1951 to 2010 time period to defend its computer model predictions.
As you so ably pointed out, the 1951 starting point was just spin. And as I have shown, even that time period still shows the IPCC's predictions were spectacularly wrong.
Whatever you wanna call it, sweetheart.
Give us the the weather report for the summer of 2014 in Toronto.
Will it be normal temperatures, colder or warmer??
I'll even give you 1 degree margin of error, because God knows you're probably gonna need it.
Are you gonna answer the question this time, or you gonna be dodgy groggy again??
