Twenty years of overestimating global warming?

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

  1. onalandline

    onalandline Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    9,976
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Draft UN climate report shows 20 years of overestimated global warming, skeptics warn:

    A preliminary draft of a report by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was leaked to the public this month, and climate skeptics say it contains fresh evidence of 20 years of overstated global warming.

    The report -- which is not scheduled for publication until 2014 -- was leaked by someone involved in the IPCC’s review process, and is available for download online. Bloggers combing through the report discovered a chart comparing the four temperature models the group has published since 1990. Each has overstated the rise in temperature that Earth actually experienced.

    “Temperatures have not risen nearly as much as almost all of the climate models predicted,” Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, told FoxNews.com.

    “Their predictions have largely failed, four times in a row... what that means is that it's time for them to re-evaluate,” Spencer said.

    The IPCC graph shows that the midpoints of the various models predicted that the world would warm by between about 0.5 degrees Fahrenheit and 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit between 1990 and 2012. Actual warming was much less than that: 0.28 F, according the data the IPCC cites.

    More...
     
  2. wyly

    wyly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,857
    Likes Received:
    1,159
    Trophy Points:
    113
    which only demonstrates that the bloggers are not scientists and like you cannot read a simple graph, as well you make the typical error of calling them predictions and not the correct term "projections" ...predictions call for knowing an exact outcome, scientifically that is not possible because future influencing factors can never be known, therefore they are projections and a high and low range is given...and in this case the effects of climate change do indeed fall with-in the IPCC projections...
     
  3. garry17

    garry17 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    4,126
    Likes Received:
    176
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Actually they call them estimates with a 90% certainty
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/...ogy-and-computer-models-are-seriously-flawed/
    Simple fact is, they got it wrong. So what is the outcome?
    But you can attempt to justify the fact that real observations do not in any way support the theory all you like.
     
  4. onalandline

    onalandline Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    9,976
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    63
    This is enough to question the validity of prior analysis.
     
  5. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Watts is using made up numbers. There's a reason he didn't link to the actual reports. Go read FAR, SAR, TAR 4AR and see what a liar Watts is.
    Example
    [​IMG]Watts claims IPCC "predicted" a .48C to .68C in SAR. Show me how the above graph from SAR projects a .48C to .68C rise between 1990 + 2012?
     
  6. Windigo

    Windigo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    15,026
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You might want to tell that to the IPCC Mannie since that is their own graphic. Warmmongers are so pathetic. We have a picture from the IPCC and you attack the source not even knowing the source.
     
    garry17 and (deleted member) like this.
  7. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    NO! We have a graphic from a source that claims it is from the IPCC. I don't believe anything from the liars.

    Why is it, Windy, that when BEST study was released without peer-review, you stated that the study was flawed. But now that the draft of the 5AR you have no problems with it's "accuracy"? I'll wait until 2014 before I make any judgments of the IPCC's 5AR.
    BTW, the Best study has now undergone peer-review.
     
  8. Windigo

    Windigo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    15,026
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The IPCC has admitted that it is authentic.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/14/ipcc-climate-change-report-leaked-online

    Mannie your games are getting tiring. Word games, source games, you never actually say anything of merit.


    In volume 1 issue 1 of an unheard of journal. Even warmmongers are calling it a joke.
     
  9. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Look up the word "draft". Like I stated, get back to me in 2014
    Projecting again?



    Simple yes or no question: Has BEST been peer-reviewed?
     
  10. Windigo

    Windigo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    15,026
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you have gone from calling it a fraud, to 'well its draft'. You are funny one bull argument gets shot down you pretend like you never said it and just come up with another one. Kind of like you you didn't try and use sandy as evidence of global warming.

    Volume 1 issue 1. Its a joke. Even warmmongers find it laughable.
     
  11. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Go back and read my first post. Pay specific attention to the sentence with the bolded word in that post. I'm getting tired of your inability to comprehend what you read.

    Here's the leaked draft. Show me Watts' graphic in the leaked report.
    And you still haven't linked to any of my posts where I claim that Sandy is evidence of GW.
    Here is my post from that thread:
    I highlighted the part you do not seem to understand. Do you want me to draw you pictures?


    And you still can't answer a simple "yes" or "no" question!
     
  12. wist43

    wist43 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2010
    Messages:
    3,285
    Likes Received:
    1,313
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The warmists/alarmists have proven every time - the science doesn't matter; the emperical evidence doesn't matter.

    The only things that matter are the computer models, and summaries for policy makers that are of course written by non-scientist activists.

    When obviously false data is produced by the likes of Mann, Jones, and Hansen, and the many other money grubbing, grant begging academics - they simply pass the false data around amongst each other, bless it as holy writ, go on their speaking tours, feed alarmist quotes to the accomplice media - and viola!!! it's all true, "the debate is over", and the newest gospel is dogmatically preached and enforced.

    If something becomes too inconvenient, they simply repackage the snake oil, continue to attack those pointing to the actual facts as "deniers", and move on.

    That's how these frauds operate.
     
  13. garry17

    garry17 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    4,126
    Likes Received:
    176
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Actually they put the SAR at 0.3, I am not sure what you are trying to claim here.

    Do you consider the variance between top and bottom projections as being the SAR? That is the range between the noise areas, which the IPCC attempted to hang their 90% certainty on, the IPCC predict that outside forcing could deviate their projections that may vary the SAR, TAR, AR4 and the FAR.

    These outside variances are what the IPCC have claimed to be so accurate, and the fact is temperatures have not achieved these outside ranges. So their 90% certainty is a failure.

    Again actual observations demonstrate that the science used is flawed, simple as that. Modelling anything with adjusted data will always produce false results. The results will always be slanted by how the data is used and where the data is introduced into the model.

    I am actually at a loss about depending on science for these matters, as scientist themselves are the first to admit mankind barely know 1% of what is happening on this great big ball of dirt and rock and yet some would like to tell us they actually know how it works. Every day they are learning something new, but actual observations of how this planet is working seems to take a back step to models that are manipulated to produce a result of any kind because they still do not know what needs to be accounted for. What seems too hard to account is dismissed as noise and what just overloads the models are considered incalculable which is acceptable by many.

    I liked a line from the AR4 report,(no I am not going to run around to quote and find it for you)
    Atmosphere radiation forcing is far too large to calculate with the greatest computer technology of this time, so regional forcing is calculated and used to average…

    Bad data in, bad results. No the failure of the hypothesis is continued shown time and again and the nutty religious cults hang their hat on flawed data.
     
  14. garry17

    garry17 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    4,126
    Likes Received:
    176
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Talk about inability to comprehend? Does somebody else tell you what to say? Because you obviously do not read the links provided.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/the-real-ipcc-ar5-draft-bombshell-plus-a-poll/
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/...ogy-and-computer-models-are-seriously-flawed/
    You are claiming that the figures used by Watt are made up, Prove it.
     
  15. hudson1955

    hudson1955 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,596
    Likes Received:
    472
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
    Also many Scientists don't agree. Plus many studies using computer formulas call the outcome predictions based on the results. You are right about one thing; there is no actual Scientific Evidence supporting that we as humans have caused the rise in ocean temperature, melting of glaciers or that we can significantly alter the natural course of the climate. What is certain is that historically the Climate is always changing and the surface and ocean temperatures have been lower and higher than the current temperatures. Also, the current period of disasters including tornados, hurr. and glacial changes have been happened many times since the existence of man and prior to.

    Our intelligence allows us to do one thing for certain; prepare for any possible future rise in oceans and changes in temperature.

    Also don't forget that it wasn't that many years ago that they called it global cooling, global warming and due to failure to scientifically proved either it has now become, "Climate Change". In my opinion it has to do with Oil and Money more than scientific proof that we can make a significant change. Everything I have read says no matter what we do the outcome will be virtually insignificant and only cause us financial hardship.

    Agree we should try to conserve our oil, gas and coal as much as possible as it will run out some day.
     
  16. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    [​IMG]
    The first graph I posted shows SAR as a .3C rise between 1990 and 2012.
    This graphic from watts states "IPCC predicted temperature increase C (1990 t0 2012) SAR 0.48 to 0.68" . That is false. That is a lie. Proof enough?
     
  17. garry17

    garry17 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    4,126
    Likes Received:
    176
    Trophy Points:
    63
    That is funny, you produce 100 year graph and try to state that these graphs are different because a 20 year graph shows clearer the figures. Now once again, understand that the 0.3 prediction the SAR is predicting is the lowest area of the SAR due to unkown forcing outside the IPCC modelling. The presumption that these figures are .30 above actual observations comes from the IPCC themselves as they have mediated their own predelections to produce an average figure given the acceptable range covers the outside influence of unaccountable information the IPCC can not calculate or understand.

    The fact that the both figures clearly demonstrate that actual observations clearly are not within the range assumed by modelling of the IPCC only goes to the premise that this is exactly what is happening.
    Why is it a lie? So far all you have done is provide an unreferenced graph with absolutely no information except your claim that the figures are different to what Watt claims. No Proof of anything. If you have something, such as actual figures or even quotes from the AR4 report, you might have something, but you do not.

    Fact is you have nothing to refute this compilation of figures from the AR5 draft, which is in peer review process. Your complete premise is in the hands of actual observations that are clearly not supportive to the hypothesis as it stands.
     
  18. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Has nothing to do with showing "clearer the figures".
    English, please. "lowest area of the SAR" what area?
    "unkown (sic) forcing outside the IPCC modelling" ?
    What "unaccountable information"?
    Irrelevant! My post was on Watts lies; not the IPCC's accuracy.

    As I stated in the original post, the source of the graph is SAR.
    Page 9 of the leaked draft states 'Insert figure 1.4 Here'. There is no graphic in the leaked draft. Watts created that graphic with false values. The graph from the SAR shows about a .3C rise between 1990 and 2012. Watts clearly states on his graphic that IPPC's SAR predicted between a .48 and .68 rise. That is not true. Go and read the SAR.
    If you want to convince me that Watts is not lying, show in SAR where SAR predicted a 0.48C to 0.68C. Show me the graphic Watts presents in the 5AR draft.
     
  19. garry17

    garry17 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    4,126
    Likes Received:
    176
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Oh sorry should have said, taken over shorter period the variance would have been clearer. In your graph, the distance over the time fudges small scale timeframe. Do you understand that?
    You Do realise that the SAR was determined in a range? You do know what the range was? Or have you forgotten that is what all your AGW theory is about, the increase in temperature?
    You do know how this science is worked do you not? You do know they adjust the figures to eliminate such things that are considered noise? You do know what noise actually is? UNKNOWN INFORMATION
    If it was known, it would be included and a variation would not have been needed.
    It is YOUR claim they are lies and due to the fact the OP is directed at IPCC's accuracy then it is entirely relevant.
    And again do you have comprehension problems. The Graph is based on figures obtained from the AR5 draft. At no time is it stated it is from the draft and your incomprehension of that fact simply goes to show you are blindly trying to justify something with absolutely no facts.
    I am not the one claiming they are a lie, YOU are. It is up to you to prove your claims. If you cannot then it is obvious that you are trying any tactic including an abstract ability to handle the truth.
    I ask you to demonstrate the figures to prove the claim of lies and you come back at me to demand I show you the figures to show your wrong. In the absence of evidence of YOUR claim it would appear to be fabricated and would appear to be an attempt to discredit something you know little about.
    Just to demonstrate your completely incorrect premise of claim. Did you notice the table at the top, 2007 .52-.82c .24-.54c High. That is very different from your claim that it is clear .48c to .68c As explained, The graph states .3C above the IPCC's claim of the set projection. No matter what you consider is the IPCC's predictions, projections or just well informed guesses No way does this even come close to the lowest side of the IPCC's doom and gloom outcome.
    As you blindly ignore the fact that temperatures have not increased lately that all the projections the IPCC have made state constant rise. You will attempt to justify something that is clearly disproven by actual observations because it does not support your religion.
     
  20. hudson1955

    hudson1955 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,596
    Likes Received:
    472
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
    Tend to agree with you.
     
  21. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't have time to deal with all your nonsense so I'll just address this:
    I've actually looked at the leaked draft. 5AR uses the values in the graph I provided; values of 0.3C. (NOT .48 - .68 that watts claims)(do a search for "SAR" in the leaked document; page 1/9 for example.). You'll find references to the values in the graph I posted. I cannot find the values Watts claimed. It was Watts, and now your, claim that the values are accurate. Your initial claim! Show me the values in the 5AR draft. How can I provide evidence if the evidence is not there?
    Why are you introducing the 2007 values? I made no mention of the values in 4AR. The 0.48C to 0.68C are the values in Watss' graphic for SAR in the same table you're referencing for 2007. I posted a graph from SAR, (not 4AR) that shows a projection of 0.3C from 1990 to 2012; no where near Watts' claim.

    I'd quote the document but the document states the document should not be quoted, cited or distributed.
     
  22. 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 task.

    #1 Print out the graph.
    #2 Mark on the X axis 2012.
    #3 Take a stright edge and draw a vertical line throuigh the grapn.
    #4 Mark the where the line intersects the upper and lower bounds of the SAR.
    #5 Draw two horizontal lines to the Y-axis from these marks.
    #6 Leave this forum in shame and never come back.
     
  23. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why is it so hard to get through your thick skull that Watts' graph and values are bogus?
    I know the leaked 5AR states "do not quote", but it seems the only way for you and garry to get it, is to quote the leaked 5AR.
    From the leaked 5AR:
    "The coloured shading shows the projected range of global annual mean near surface temperature change from 1990 to 2015 for models used in FAR (Scenario D and business-as-usual), SAR (IS92c/1.5 and IS92e/4.5),".
    Now go back and look at the graph I posted from SAR. 5AR references that graph. What is the temperature value of IS92c for the year 2012? Is it between 0.48C & 0.68C?
    Now take your own advice:
    "
    #1 Print out the graph. (from the SAR)
    #2 Mark on the X axis 2012.
    #3 Take a stright (sic) edge and draw a vertical line throuigh (sic) the grapn (sic).
    #4 Mark the where the line intersects the upper and lower bounds of the SAR.
    #5 Draw two horizontal lines to the Y-axis from these marks.
    #6 Leave this forum in shame and never come back"
     
  24. Windigo

    Windigo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    15,026
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why is it so hard to get through your head that the numbers come from the IPCC not Watts!!!!

    Are you saying that the AR5's numbers are bogus.
    No I get it. You don't because you read skeptical science and they lied their asses off to you. Look at your quote. I'll bold it for you IS92c/1.5 and IS92e/4.5. Do you know what those bolded numbers mean. Its the assumed forcing. 192c/1.5 and 192e/4.5 represent the range of model runs done in the IPCC SAR.

    Your graph from the SAR is of 192a-f/2.5. Which is why there isn't as much range in your graph the forcing is consent and only represents a third of the model runs used in the SAR projections.

    No need I actually know what the AR5 graph is of and what your cherry picked graph from the SAR is of. You don't. So for me there is no need. You need to stop reading SKS those lying SOBs aren't worth the band width they take up.

    Now will you quit trying to act like watts made up numbers. All you need to do is take a straight edge and see that those numbers come straight from the IPCC AR5 figure.
     
  25. garry17

    garry17 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    4,126
    Likes Received:
    176
    Trophy Points:
    63
    LOL...No it is my claim that the IPCC's projections are clearly wrong. It is your claim that the figures Watts used are lie. Fact is, later in this very post, you make reference to the figures I have been subscribing to and yet you cannot see there is major shortfall in projections.

    I have pointed out exactly where on the particular table the projected increases are, it is your claim that Watts Graph is claiming 0.48C to 0.68C.

    LOL... and thus stands the problem of your claim that the figures are lies. Is 0.3C above 0.12C to 0.16C? As again pointed out the lowest point that you want to POO POO is 0.24C which is below the 0.3C, giving the lowest range to allow for unknown forcing outside the scope of understanding. Again that is from influences that are unaccounted for due to unknown relationship.

    So what is it actual observations of 0.12C and 0.16C is lower than the projected 0.3C and even the certainty lowest range of 0.24C the IPCC claimed was so accurate that nobody can deny? Or do you think you can find some figures that actually show the IPCC has produced something of integrity?
    LOL... which one? The draft? Or the SAR?

    You attempt to split hairs here is failing dismally. The fact you really do not understand both graphs, your own included is not helping your understanding.

    As stated, the IPCC has got it very wrong, and no amount of mudding the water will change that. Projections the IPCC have claimed to be so accurate are flawed from actual observations. If you use faulty data to create a model to project anything, you will get nothing of substance out, and that is what has happened here.
     

Share This Page