How Bad Is Global Warming?

[justdrew]

[Ben D]

Exasperating it is putting the truth and the science right before your eyes and you deny it....it's not about me, it's about the science.

So here is a test for your scientific aptitude,..if you guys don't understand the scientific implications of this post, then please don't just curse me and name call, be specific and explain where you think the science is wrong.

The question to you is,..is the current global temperature within or without the all prior and present predictions of all of the IPCC used computer models?

I confirm the answer to what the graph clearly indicates, but if you think I'm wrong, explain to me your reason,...is that fair?

From the leaked draft the IPCC AR5, you can see the previous and current IPCC model forecasts, ie... FAR (1990), SAR (1995), TAR (2001), and AR4 (2007), against actual temperature...the global temperature as it is now falls below every forecast,...the models are plain wrong, the science is not settled!

Note..the grey area is not a part of the models..

Also note from the actual global temperatures that there has been no increased warming for the last 16 years...and btw while the CO2 levels have been increasing linearly...

that is a very incomplete view of the heat. excess heat from light reflected back from the greenhouse effect is not all kept in the air surface temps, it flows into the oceans and ice caps.

Drew, are you serious, you can't be that dumb?

This is the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change we're dealing with, this information comes from sophisticated and complex computer climate models put together by the world's top climatologists. You will need to tell Hansen et al of their errors...

[Joe Hillshoist]

Exasperating it is putting the truth and the science right before your eyes and you deny it....it's not about me, it's about the science.

So here is a test for your scientific aptitude,..if you guys don't understand the scientific implications of this post, then please don't just curse me and name call, be specific and explain where you think the science is wrong.

So the actual issue with this is the difference between the results presented on your graph, and the Ippc predictions.

If I was a smartarse I'd laugh and say look where you got the graph from, but...

Instead i'll ask what the figures are and can you show the continuity of figures from IPCC reports, measurements etc to that graph, or a similar one on a less biased, or pro AGW source?

But for the sake of argument lets assume the graph is accurate.

The question to you is,..is the current global temperature within or without the all prior and present predictions of all of the IPCC used computer models?

I confirm the answer to what the graph clearly indicates, but if you think I'm wrong, explain to me your reason,...is that fair?

From the leaked draft the IPCC AR5, you can see the previous and current IPCC model forecasts, ie... FAR (1990), SAR (1995), TAR (2001), and AR4 (2007), against actual temperature...the global temperature as it is now falls below every forecast,...the models are plain wrong, the science is not settled!

Ok so the graph indicates clearly that from there is a warming trend that has continued for the last 18 or so years, however it also indicates that the temps within the prediction range for the TAr but on the low end, and that overall the predictions have been high but most of the temps have been within or very close to the prediction range. Not necessarily of AR$, but definitely within the range of the TAR predictions. Just on the lower end.

I would dispute your claim that the global temp now falls below every forecast. I'm assuming that the vertical line on the observed temps means a range of temps for the year, ot perhaps its the error range, either way, and that the entire coloured area is a range of predicted temps. If it means something else some info would help. Honestly tho the irony of being told I'm scientifically illiterate by someone who appears to be misreading a graph that is probably biased against AGW anyway is .. well its there anyway.

Note..the grey area is not a part of the models..

Also note from the actual global temperatures that there has been no increased warming for the last 16 years...and btw while the CO2 levels have been increasing linearly...

Are we looking at the same graph?

Cos the one I'm looking at clearly shows an increase in temperature.

If you liked you could say :"there was no increase in warming from 2004 to 2010, overall" tho you'd still be on shaky ground cos that isn't a big enough timespan to make a meaningful comment.

So the IPCC reports are nowhere near as inaccurate as you claim them to be. And there has been clear increases in temps over the last 16 years, Its consistently 0.4 to 0.5 of a degree hotter than it was 16 years ago. Have a look at the graph.

Clearly its this sort of misunderstanding that has led to over half of Australians not thinking AGW is a reality. We used to make jokes about how stupid some other cultures were.

[Ben D]

Exasperating it is putting the truth and the science right before your eyes and you deny it....it's not about me, it's about the science.

So here is a test for your scientific aptitude,..if you guys don't understand the scientific implications of this post, then please don't just curse me and name call, be specific and explain where you think the science is wrong.

So the actual issue with this is the difference between the results presented on your graph, and the Ippc predictions.

If I was a smartarse I'd laugh and say look where you got the graph from, but...

Instead i'll ask what the figures are and can you show the continuity of figures from IPCC reports, measurements etc to that graph, or a similar one on a less biased, or pro AGW source?

But for the sake of argument lets assume the graph is accurate.

The question to you is,..is the current global temperature within or without the all prior and present predictions of all of the IPCC used computer models?

I confirm the answer to what the graph clearly indicates, but if you think I'm wrong, explain to me your reason,...is that fair?

From the leaked draft the IPCC AR5, you can see the previous and current IPCC model forecasts, ie... FAR (1990), SAR (1995), TAR (2001), and AR4 (2007), against actual temperature...the global temperature as it is now falls below every forecast,...the models are plain wrong, the science is not settled!

Ok so the graph indicates clearly that from there is a warming trend that has continued for the last 18 or so years, however it also indicates that the temps within the prediction range for the TAr but on the low end, and that overall the predictions have been high but most of the temps have been within or very close to the prediction range. Not necessarily of AR$, but definitely within the range of the TAR predictions. Just on the lower end.

I would dispute your claim that the global temp now falls below every forecast. I'm assuming that the vertical line on the observed temps means a range of temps for the year, ot perhaps its the error range, either way, and that the entire coloured area is a range of predicted temps. If it means something else some info would help. Honestly tho the irony of being told I'm scientifically illiterate by someone who appears to be misreading a graph that is probably biased against AGW anyway is .. well its there anyway.

Note..the grey area is not a part of the models..

Also note from the actual global temperatures that there has been no increased warming for the last 16 years...and btw while the CO2 levels have been increasing linearly...

Are we looking at the same graph?

Cos the one I'm looking at clearly shows an increase in temperature.

If you liked you could say :"there was no increase in warming from 2004 to 2010, overall" tho you'd still be on shaky ground cos that isn't a big enough timespan to make a meaningful comment.

So the IPCC reports are nowhere near as inaccurate as you claim them to be. And there has been clear increases in temps over the last 16 years, Its consistently 0.4 to 0.5 of a degree hotter than it was 16 years ago. Have a look at the graph.

Clearly its this sort of misunderstanding that has led to over half of Australians not thinking AGW is a reality. We used to make jokes about how stupid some other cultures were.

Joe, you are out of your depth...

What you need to do is look at the projections of the AGW computer models of global temperature to see how well they stand up against actual global temperature. If they do track, then the AGW science is validated, if they don't, then they modify the model to see if it tracks in future, and again and again. This graph shows four different models and the black dots show actual recorded global temperature and show that the actual temperature is outside projections of all computer models. Iow, none of the present AGW models track actual global temperature so they are wrong.

And please show me on that graph where you get your 0.4 to 0.5 degree C increase after 1996/7 which sits at around the 0.4 degree C anomaly mark?

[Iamwhomiam]

Nah. No gonna do it, but ignoring you and your continual misleading, your endless obfuscation of fact to better reflect your scientifically unbased bias... Yeah, I can do that.

You post a killer story from Watts up...and nearly immediately it is completely discredited, and what do you have to say about that? Nada. Except maybe for this inanity: "Drew, be patient, the AGW scam is on its last legs and is in the process of going the way of Y2K..."

I won't argue any longer with you, Bendy Da Truth. But I'm sure from time to time I will still strongly criticize your ridiculous comments and postings.

And don't call anyone else a troll!
On this issue at least, it is you who has been doing the trolling.

You have the perception of a brick.

[Ben D]

Nah. No gonna do it, but ignoring you and your continual misleading, your endless obfuscation of fact to better reflect your scientifically unbased bias... Yeah, I can do that.

You post a killer story from Watts up...and nearly immediately it is completely discredited, and what do you have to say about that? Nada. Except maybe for this inanity: "Drew, be patient, the AGW scam is on its last legs and is in the process of going the way of Y2K..."

I won't argue any longer with you, Bendy Da Truth. But I'm sure from time to time I will still strongly criticize your ridiculous comments and postings.

And don't call anyone else a troll!
On this issue at least, it is you who has been doing the trolling.

You have the perception of a brick.

Haha, please tell who discredited it? Do you understand that this is UN IPCC sourced material?

[wintler2]

BenD will insist that his latest graph proves everything he wants to believe - just like the last 20 times! But the graph above shows the continuing temp anomaly - .3 or .4C above the early 90s baseline. The last decade doesn't appear to have warmed as much as some models predicted - so what? temp is still well above the long term average (thats how they calc the anomaly) the sea is still acidifying, the arctic & greenland are accelerating their melt, ditto tundra, etc. For BenD to be right, the temp anomaly would have to be zero, for decades, and its definately not.

But do be patient with BenD, he's from Queensland, where megalomaniac brownshirts win elections and cults & meth labs abound.

[Ben D]

BenD will insist that his latest graph proves everything he wants to believe - just like the last 20 times! But the graph above shows the continuing temp anomaly - .3 or .4C above the early 90s baseline. The last decade doesn't appear to have warmed as much as some models predicted - so what? temp is still well above the long term average (thats how they calc the anomaly) the sea is still acidifying, the arctic & greenland are accelerating their melt, ditto tundra, etc. For BenD to be right, the temp anomaly would have to be zero, for decades, and its definately not.

But do be patient with BenD, he's from Queensland, where megalomaniac brownshirts win elections and cults & meth labs abound.

Haha, I know you would rather talk about megalomaniac brownshirts, elections, and cults & meth labs, etc. , but is it on topic really? Clear minds can see you do this to avoid the point,..this graph shows the AGW models projections have failed to predict global temperature within the margin of error allowed, the science is not settled, CO2 is not doing the forcing the models predicted,....the AGW climatologists are facing end game...sooner than you think.

[justdrew]

http://theenergycollective.com/globalwarmingisreal/155651/initial-ipcc-predictions-global-temperature-rise-remarkably-accurate

[DrEvil]

As usual Ben, you didn't source your graph, so I went digging through the report. It's from the Introduction. And as usual you show your complete ignorance and/or intellectual dishonesty. Here is the text that goes with that graph. I bolded the important bit (and it also explains the mysterious gray area, so I'm going to assume that you didn't bother to read it before posting):

Figure 1.4: [PLACEHOLDER FOR FINAL DRAFT: Observational datasets will be updated as soon as they become available] Estimated changes in the observed globally and annually averaged surface temperature (in C) since 1990 5 compared with the range of projections from the previous IPCC assessments. Values are aligned to match the average 6 observed value at 1990. Observed global annual temperature change, relative to 1961–1990, is shown as black squares 7 (NASA (updated from Hansen et al., 2010; data available at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/); NOAA (updated from 8 Smith et al., 2008; data available at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.html#grid); and the UK Hadley 9 Centre (Morice et al., 2012; data available at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/) reanalyses). Whiskers 10 indicate the 90% uncertainty range of the Morice et al. (2012) dataset from measurement and sampling, bias and 11 coverage (see Appendix for methods). The coloured shading shows the projected range of global annual mean near 12 surface temperature change from 1990 to 2015 for models used in FAR (Scenario D and business-as-usual), SAR 13 (IS92c/1.5 and IS92e/4.5), TAR (full range of TAR Figure 9.13(b) based on the GFDL_R15_a and DOE PCM 14 parameter settings), and AR4 (A1B and A1T). The 90% uncertainty estimate due to observational uncertainty and 15 internal variability based on the HadCRUT4 temperature data for 1951-1980 is depicted by the grey shading. Moreover, 16 the publication years of the assessment reports and the scenario design are shown.

[Ben D]

http://theenergycollective.com/globalwarmingisreal/155651/initial-ipcc-predictions-global-temperature-rise-remarkably-accurate

Drew, you are just too silly for words, that article is dated December 12, 2012, and is based on IPCC AR4 before the AR5 IPCC data that I have posted here was released, Now the IPCC AR5 data I have posted shows that the actual temperatures have failed to meet their AR5 models expectations.

Drew, in light of your lack of even basic understanding of how science works, please understand that I will not bother to respond to your future sillyness.

Science is not about winning a debate. it's about the verifiable truth of scientific theories.

[justdrew]

http://theenergycollective.com/globalwarmingisreal/155651/initial-ipcc-predictions-global-temperature-rise-remarkably-accurate

Drew, you are just too silly for words, that article is dated December 12, 2012, and is based on IPCC AR4 before the AR5 IPCC data that I have posted here was released, Now the IPCC AR5 data I have posted shows that the actual temperatures have failed to meet their AR5 models expectations.

Drew, in light of your lack of even basic understanding of how science works, please understand that I will not bother to respond to your future sillyness.

Science is not about winning a debate. it's about the verifiable truth of scientific theories.

AR5 isn't out til 2014 fool. whatever you're looking at, and you're undoubtedly misunderstanding it, is not relevant yet. we don't even know if whatever 'leak' you're looking at has been verified, or altered, etc.

[Iamwhomiam]

"But do be patient with BenD, he's from Queensland, where megalomaniac brownshirts win elections and cults & meth labs abound."

Really? I always imagined him to to one of the last of the vanishing breed of Tasmanian Devils!

"Clear minds can see you do this to avoid the point..."

Really, Ben? Who is it, I wonder, who's explained this to you?

[Ben D]

As usual Ben, you didn't source your graph, so I went digging through the report. It's from the Introduction. And as usual you show your complete ignorance and/or intellectual dishonesty. Here is the text that goes with that graph. I bolded the important bit (and it also explains the mysterious gray area, so I'm going to assume that you didn't bother to read it before posting):

Figure 1.4 The 90% uncertainty estimate due to observational uncertainty and internal variability based on the HadCRUT4 temperature data for 1951-1980 is depicted by the grey shading. Moreover, the publication years of the assessment reports and the scenario design are shown.

Nothing of note here,..the attributed source of the grey area is not listed in the graph proper because it is not under consideration for model accuracy.

Same thing as Drew, stop wasting my time with spurious stuff that changes nothing...

[Iamwhomiam]

Drew a disreputable Septic Skeptic broke his oath and leaked this portion of the still actively being compiled draft of AR 5. Watts published an edited version, leaving out the most important details, which "clear minded" Ben was unaware of when he posted it.