Thread: Twenty years of overestimating global warming?

Originally Posted by mamooth

So your official line is that Spencer repeated it verbatim and didn't add his own lines to the graph, he own weird interpretation? That kind of misrepresentation and blatant partisan hackery is why no one pays attention to y'all.

All your amazing number crunching is based on a very flawed premise, which is why no serious person is paying any attention to it. Granted, the FOX/WUWT crowd eats it up, so congratulations on more successful preaching to that ever-shrinking choir.

Hi Mam...remember me??

no one pays attention to y'all.

why no serious person is paying any attention to it.


to that ever-shrinking choir.

LOL....After all this time you still are living your dream world.......

carbon taxes are so unpopular they won't even bring them up in congress any more
every poll finds MAJORITIES of scientists say AGW is way over stated
Even Obama is pushing for more natural gas production (BTW it makes 2/3's the CO2 of coal per BTU)
Al Gore has been so discredited he is a laughing stock even among liberals
It is now 2013 and none of the doomsdays have happened
Most of the alternative energy firms that Obama gave billions (of my tax $$) to have gone bankrupt with the exec's taking the money and running (and laughing)
Now, even the IPCC admits they were wrong and the sun (OMG the SUN!!....who'd a thunk it!!) warms the planet

And you STILL say the extremists are WINNING???.......your a piece of work ol' Buddy

RC has their recent annual model/data comparison out...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...on-comparions/

Global surface temperature fits closely with most models. Hansen's 1988 model, forced with 4.2C climate sensitivity, is somewhat of an overestimate, but 3C is where most of the science points to today. Arctic sea ice depletion has been significantly underestimated.

If you want to see woefully wrong predictions, it's easy to find them among global warming deniers.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013...ng-prediction/

Originally Posted by gmb92

RC has their recent annual model/data comparison out...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...on-comparions/

Global surface temperature fits closely with most models. Hansen's 1988 model, forced with 4.2C climate sensitivity, is somewhat of an overestimate, but 3C is where most of the science points to today. Arctic sea ice depletion has been significantly underestimated.

If you want to see woefully wrong predictions, it's easy to find them among global warming deniers.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013...ng-prediction/

LOL......SOMEWHAT??? Hansen claimed most of the near shore highways on Manhattan would be under water by now. ROLF.....

Originally Posted by Elmer Fudd

LOL......SOMEWHAT??? Hansen claimed most of the near shore highways on Manhattan would be under water by now. ROLF.....

Incorrect.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hans...de-Highway.htm

Deniers seem to like the telephone game.

Hansen is usually on the money.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hans...-home-run.html

Originally Posted by gmb92

Incorrect.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hans...de-Highway.htm

Deniers seem to like the telephone game.

Hansen is usually on the money.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hans...-home-run.html

Jesus, his model wasn't anywhere near accurate. We are currently below scenario CO which is net 0 emissions after 2000.

Your entire movement has been torpedoed by your own desire to protect the ego of your priests. If you had just thrown Hansne and Mann under the bus when you should have you wouldnt' be losing so badly right now.

I know you will never get that.

Originally Posted by Windigo

Jesus, his model wasn't anywhere near accurate. We are currently below scenario CO which is net 0 emissions after 2000.

Your entire movement has been torpedoed by your own desire to protect the ego of your priests. If you had just thrown Hansne and Mann under the bus when you should have you wouldnt' be losing so badly right now.

I know you will never get that.

In the post you responded to, I wasn't even refer to his 1988 study. Try to keep up. You look foolish.

Originally Posted by gmb92

In the post you responded to, I wasn't even refer to his 1988 study. Try to keep up. You look foolish.

I didn't read them you said he usually on the money. His most famous prediction was wrong. Prove otherwise.

Climatology deals with trends.So why does Glickstein (not Watts as I stated earlier) use the 2012 temperatures (0.12C to .016C) instead of the trend from 1990 to 2012? By using a single year as the standard, that one year becomes important in assessing IPCC projections and the "accuracy" will fluctuate depending on the year's anomalies.
And Tamino has a point. The IPCC makes the same mistake by starting the plots on a single year instead of the trend in 1990.

"The flaw is this: all the series (both projections and observations) are aligned at 1990. But observations include random year-to-year fluctuations, whereas the projections do not because the average of multiple models averages those out. Using a single-year baseline (1990) offsets all subsequent years by the fluctuation of that baseline year. Instead, the projections should be aligned to the value due to the existing trend in observations at 1990."

Originally Posted by MannieD

Climatology deals with trends.So why does Glickstein (not Watts as I stated earlier) use the 2012 temperatures (0.12C to .016C) instead of the trend from 1990 to 2012? By using a single year as the standard, that one year becomes important in assessing IPCC projections and the "accuracy" will fluctuate depending on the year's anomalies.
And Tamino has a point. The IPCC makes the same mistake by starting the plots on a single year instead of the trend in 1990.

That makes absolutely no sense what so ever. The trend in 1990 from what. The linear trend is dependent on from when to when.

Originally Posted by Windigo

That makes absolutely no sense what so ever. The trend in 1990 from what. The linear trend is dependent on from when to when.

If Glickstein had used the trend, because climatology uses trends and not data from year to year, the increase in temps from 1990 to 2012 would not have been .012 - 0.16C increase.