Twenty years of overestimating global warming?

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by onalandline, Jan 29, 2013.

  1. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    19a-f2.5 is the only graph I could find on line. 0.3C rise is still less than what Watt claims. So Watts was lying as his lower limit his higher than SAR's midrange. But here I've taken a screen shot of SAR graph figure 19. Source is SAR (Page 40 of the document, page 54 of the PDF)
    [​IMG]
    IS92c/1.5 (used in 5AR) comes in at about 0.2C difference between 1990 and 2012. Maximum IS92e/4.5 comes in at about 0.5C.; certainly not with Watts' .48 and .68.

    Watts made of the values in his graph.

    I'll reconsider your point if you can show me Watts' range in SAR. I've looked through the document and have not found his values anywhere.
     
  2. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    [​IMG]

    No Watts is. Can you read the second line, third column, of the table in the graphic above? What are the values for 1996 {Second) IPCC Predicted temperature increase for 1990 to 2012?
    I'll make it easy for you:
    1996.......... Second......... x to y............ 0.2C to 0.4 high

    What are the values of X and Y?
     
  3. Windigo

    Windigo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    15,026
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Manny I want you to do a simple experiment. I want you to look at the AR5 figure. I want you to identify the Y intercept of the AR5 graph. I then want you to look at the SAR graph and find the Y intercept.

    I then want you to slink off and never come back.
     
  4. Windigo

    Windigo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    15,026
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    :wall:

    Mannie would you just take the time to look at the graph and try to understand what the numbers are??? Seriously you aren't working too hard a this.
     
  5. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't care what the numbers on the graph are. The graph is not from 5AR. The leaked 5AR has this in place of Watts' graph
    "[INSERT FIGURE 1.4 HERE] 46
    Figure 1.4: [PLACEHOLDER FOR FINAL DRAFT" Page1/9
    The graph is one made with made up values by Watts; values not found in SAR. I posted the graph with the actual values from SAR.

    The graph on Watts site does not exist in the leaked 5AR! :no:

    Unless you can find Watts' values in SAR, you can keep :wall: . I looked and found them nowhere.
     
  6. Windigo

    Windigo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    15,026
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes you posted a graph from the SAR. First you posted the wrong one because you never read the SAR. You read Skeptical Sciences spin and lied about having read the SAR. That being said the SAR shows exactly what the AR5 graph shows. You just have to know how to read a graph.

    So like I said find the Y intercept of the SAR graph. Then find the Y intercept of the AR5 graph. That will give you the answer you seek.

    What we have here is a funny version of Hanlon's razor. You are attributing to malice that which is explained by your inability to read a graph.
     
  7. Windigo

    Windigo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    15,026
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh Jesus Christ do you read anything? Its on page 39. The figures start on page 36 and run all the way to page 55.
     
  8. Windigo

    Windigo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    15,026
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think that maybe the light has gone on in Mannies head.

    Does Mannie now realize that

    #1 The difference between the graphs is because the SAR is centered at 0 and the AR5 is at 0.28?
    #2 The AR5 figure is in the leak on page 39?
    #3 He has been wrong this whole time?
    #4 He should leave the forum to make it a better place for all?
     
  9. garry17

    garry17 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    4,126
    Likes Received:
    176
    Trophy Points:
    63
    For heaven’s sake, do you actually see the problem with your argument? You continue to produce figures that are well above the actual observations in an attempt to justify a lie, you claim to being perpetrated. As the graph and yourself clearly demonstrate the IPCC have continued to get this wrong.

    for example, you wish to know what the value of X and Y is. When you actually have them in front of you. The problem is, they are the extremes of a range that the IPCC have hung their hat on and are clearly wrong.

    Every predicated assumption from the IPCC from conception to now are proven wrong by actual observations. No matter how hard you attempt to prove the figures wrong they are way above the actual observations. Again look at all the figures produced by the IPCC and let me know which of the figures you consider the actual observations fall into the projections of the IPCC's range of certainty they claimed is accurate to 90%. You will find none of them. So you claim of a lie and your claim that the actual observations fall well within the range of the IPCC's FAR, SAR and TAR are obviously incorrect.
     
  10. Windigo

    Windigo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    15,026
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Now that Mannie has run off realizing how wrong he was ... again let me just post some simple MS paints to show how he fracked up.

    First lets post the SAR graph.

    [​IMG]

    Ignore the dashed line at the top that is if aerosols were kept constant. The graph from the AR5 doesn't use those runs.

    Notice that the graph is centered at 0. It shows a rise from 1990-2012 ranging from 0.2C-0.4C.

    Now lets look at the AR 5 graph.

    [​IMG]

    The only difference here is that the graph isn't set at 0. It is at 0.28. But when you take that offset into account the graphs are the same.

    Watts didn't invent anything. There are no lies. Mannie just didn't know how to read a graph.
     
  11. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Awww! Looks like you missed me windy. I'm touched.
    Yes, Windy. I was wrong. I didn't read the whole leaked 5AR. The graph was from 5AR.
    If everyone that made a mistake left PF, this place wouldn't have many members left; and definitely all the deniers would be gone.
     
    garry17 and (deleted member) like this.
  12. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,419
    Likes Received:
    2,184
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's from Spencer (our favorite creationist), and was trumpeted by Watts, so any rational person simply assumes it's a big distortion of the truth. Some have learned from experience, and some are denialists, gleefully getting fooled again and again.

    It's easy to see the bogus method Spencer uses, disregarding the effects of the strong La Nina cycle for the past 5 years, and which the models don't factor in. Factor out that noise, and the models are spot on. That would be why no serious scientist is paying attention to this propaganda stunt. Spencer shows "models don't predict La Nina", which everyone already knew, but that doesn't sound very dramatic, so he does a switcheroo to "Ha! Models are totally wrong!".
     
  13. Windigo

    Windigo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    15,026
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Its not from Spencer its from a leaked copy of an IPCC AR5 draft report.

    Try and keep up.
     
  14. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,419
    Likes Received:
    2,184
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
  15. Windigo

    Windigo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    15,026
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Where do you keep getting Spencer from. The OP article is written by someone named Ira.

    All Spencer did was provide a quote to Fox.

    You can't even ad him right.
     
  16. Elmer Fudd

    Elmer Fudd New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    823
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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
     
  17. gmb92

    gmb92 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,799
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    RC has their recent annual model/data comparison out...

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/02/2012-updates-to-model-observation-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/201...81-matt-ridleys-20-year-old-wrong-prediction/
     
  18. Elmer Fudd

    Elmer Fudd New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    823
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    LOL......SOMEWHAT??? Hansen claimed most of the near shore highways on Manhattan would be under water by now. ROLF.....
     
  19. gmb92

    gmb92 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,799
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
  20. Windigo

    Windigo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    15,026
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  21. gmb92

    gmb92 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,799
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In the post you responded to, I wasn't even refer to his 1988 study. Try to keep up. You look foolish.
     
  22. Windigo

    Windigo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    15,026
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I didn't read them you said he usually on the money. His most famous prediction was wrong. Prove otherwise.
     
  23. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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."
     
  24. Windigo

    Windigo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    15,026
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That makes absolutely no sense what so ever. The trend in 1990 from what. The linear trend is dependent on from when to when.
     
  25. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page