How can anyone deny man made climate change?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#202 Posted by deeliman (2343 posts) -

@KC_Hokie said:

@BeardMaster said:

The reason people doubt global warming, is because it hurts businesses and businesses have a major self interest in tricking people to think its fake.

Some people are easily duped, thats your answer.

The scientific community doesnt have any real financial or self interest in global warming being real. The business community has a huge stake in proving it false. Its basically the same as when companies were trying to prove smoking isnt dangerous.

I don't get paid by anyone to point out over the last 500,000 years the earth has been warmer several times. There is nothing unusual about current temperatures in the history of the earth.

I would argue you're easily duped if you think climate did it's own thing for millions of years, but something magical happened in the last 100-200 years which shifts mother nature and climate to human activity.

So you think the climate warms and cools because it feels like doing so? Their's always something forcing it to change, a driving factor behind it. And there's pretty substantial evidence that humans are that factor, whether you choose to ignore that evidence or not.

#203 Edited by BeardMaster (1580 posts) -

@KC_Hokie said:

@BeardMaster said:

The reason people doubt global warming, is because it hurts businesses and businesses have a major self interest in tricking people to think its fake.

Some people are easily duped, thats your answer.

The scientific community doesnt have any real financial or self interest in global warming being real. The business community has a huge stake in proving it false. Its basically the same as when companies were trying to prove smoking isnt dangerous.

I don't get paid by anyone to point out over the last 500,000 years the earth has been warmer several times. There is nothing unusual about current temperatures in the history of the earth.

I would argue you're easily duped if you think climate did it's own thing for millions of years, but something magical happened in the last 100-200 years which shifts mother nature and climate to human activity.

I think the evidence for carbon emissions effecting the climate is fundamentally sound. And i have no reason to think scientists are tricking us. Historically scientists havent tried to trick people, but businesses with major self interests have.

From a logical standpoint i have to go with science, because science is almost always correct vs business self interest.

And carbon emissions arent exactly magical, and yes they have increased exponentially over the past 100-200 years. And how many people were driving cars 200 year ago? burning fossil fuels on a daily basis? none

#204 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie said:

@BeardMaster said:

The reason people doubt global warming, is because it hurts businesses and businesses have a major self interest in tricking people to think its fake.

Some people are easily duped, thats your answer.

The scientific community doesnt have any real financial or self interest in global warming being real. The business community has a huge stake in proving it false. Its basically the same as when companies were trying to prove smoking isnt dangerous.

I don't get paid by anyone to point out over the last 500,000 years the earth has been warmer several times. There is nothing unusual about current temperatures in the history of the earth.

I would argue you're easily duped if you think climate did it's own thing for millions of years, but something magical happened in the last 100-200 years which shifts mother nature and climate to human activity.

So you think the climate warms and cools because it feels like doing so? Their's always something forcing it to change, a driving factor behind it. And there's pretty substantial evidence that humans are that factor, whether you choose to ignore that evidence or not.

So you think climate shifted, sometime drastically, in the past WITHOUT humans but blame the last 100-200 years on humans?

That's not science; that some bizarre belief or faith.

#205 Edited by deeliman (2343 posts) -

@KC_Hokie said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie said:

@BeardMaster said:

The reason people doubt global warming, is because it hurts businesses and businesses have a major self interest in tricking people to think its fake.

Some people are easily duped, thats your answer.

The scientific community doesnt have any real financial or self interest in global warming being real. The business community has a huge stake in proving it false. Its basically the same as when companies were trying to prove smoking isnt dangerous.

I don't get paid by anyone to point out over the last 500,000 years the earth has been warmer several times. There is nothing unusual about current temperatures in the history of the earth.

I would argue you're easily duped if you think climate did it's own thing for millions of years, but something magical happened in the last 100-200 years which shifts mother nature and climate to human activity.

So you think the climate warms and cools because it feels like doing so? Their's always something forcing it to change, a driving factor behind it. And there's pretty substantial evidence that humans are that factor, whether you choose to ignore that evidence or not.

So you think climate shifted, sometime drastically, in the past WITHOUT humans but blame the last 100-200 years on humans?

That's not science; that some bizarre belief or faith.

It would only be faith if there wasn't any evidence for it. There's a lot of evidence that the climate change in the past years has been primarily caused by humans.

#206 Posted by Brain_Duster (380 posts) -

@KC_Hokie said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie said:

@BeardMaster said:

The reason people doubt global warming, is because it hurts businesses and businesses have a major self interest in tricking people to think its fake.

Some people are easily duped, thats your answer.

The scientific community doesnt have any real financial or self interest in global warming being real. The business community has a huge stake in proving it false. Its basically the same as when companies were trying to prove smoking isnt dangerous.

I don't get paid by anyone to point out over the last 500,000 years the earth has been warmer several times. There is nothing unusual about current temperatures in the history of the earth.

I would argue you're easily duped if you think climate did it's own thing for millions of years, but something magical happened in the last 100-200 years which shifts mother nature and climate to human activity.

So you think the climate warms and cools because it feels like doing so? Their's always something forcing it to change, a driving factor behind it. And there's pretty substantial evidence that humans are that factor, whether you choose to ignore that evidence or not.

So you think climate shifted, sometime drastically, in the past WITHOUT humans but blame the last 100-200 years on humans?

That's not science; that some bizarre belief or faith.

There can be more than one reason for something happening...

#207 Posted by BeardMaster (1580 posts) -

@KC_Hokie said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie said:

@BeardMaster said:

The reason people doubt global warming, is because it hurts businesses and businesses have a major self interest in tricking people to think its fake.

Some people are easily duped, thats your answer.

The scientific community doesnt have any real financial or self interest in global warming being real. The business community has a huge stake in proving it false. Its basically the same as when companies were trying to prove smoking isnt dangerous.

I don't get paid by anyone to point out over the last 500,000 years the earth has been warmer several times. There is nothing unusual about current temperatures in the history of the earth.

I would argue you're easily duped if you think climate did it's own thing for millions of years, but something magical happened in the last 100-200 years which shifts mother nature and climate to human activity.

So you think the climate warms and cools because it feels like doing so? Their's always something forcing it to change, a driving factor behind it. And there's pretty substantial evidence that humans are that factor, whether you choose to ignore that evidence or not.

So you think climate shifted, sometime drastically, in the past WITHOUT humans but blame the last 100-200 years on humans?

That's not science; that some bizarre belief or faith.

The notion is that humans are adversely accelerating it. Which evidence seems to suggest they are.

#208 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

@KC_Hokie said:

@BeardMaster said:

The reason people doubt global warming, is because it hurts businesses and businesses have a major self interest in tricking people to think its fake.

Some people are easily duped, thats your answer.

The scientific community doesnt have any real financial or self interest in global warming being real. The business community has a huge stake in proving it false. Its basically the same as when companies were trying to prove smoking isnt dangerous.

I don't get paid by anyone to point out over the last 500,000 years the earth has been warmer several times. There is nothing unusual about current temperatures in the history of the earth.

I would argue you're easily duped if you think climate did it's own thing for millions of years, but something magical happened in the last 100-200 years which shifts mother nature and climate to human activity.

I think the evidence for carbon emissions effecting the climate is fundamentally sound. And i have no reason to think scientists are tricking us. Historically scientists havent tried to trick people, but businesses with major self interests have.

From a logical standpoint i have to go with science, because science is almost always correct vs business self interest.

And carbon emissions are exactly magical, and yes they have increased exponentially over the past 100-200 years. And how many people were driving cars 200 year ago? burning fossil fuels on a daily basis? none

Even the IPCC recently admitted they've been overestimating the impact of CO2.

It turns out it's a weak greenhouse gas, a very small percentage of the atmosphere, the human % is even lower, and CO2 doesn't effect climate like they once thought.

Climate sensitivity is far lower than predicted over the last two decades.

IPCC AR5 draft figure 1-4 with animated central Global Warming predictions from FAR (1990), SAR (1996), TAR (2001), and AR5 (2007).

#209 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

@KC_Hokie said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie said:

@BeardMaster said:

The reason people doubt global warming, is because it hurts businesses and businesses have a major self interest in tricking people to think its fake.

Some people are easily duped, thats your answer.

The scientific community doesnt have any real financial or self interest in global warming being real. The business community has a huge stake in proving it false. Its basically the same as when companies were trying to prove smoking isnt dangerous.

I don't get paid by anyone to point out over the last 500,000 years the earth has been warmer several times. There is nothing unusual about current temperatures in the history of the earth.

I would argue you're easily duped if you think climate did it's own thing for millions of years, but something magical happened in the last 100-200 years which shifts mother nature and climate to human activity.

So you think the climate warms and cools because it feels like doing so? Their's always something forcing it to change, a driving factor behind it. And there's pretty substantial evidence that humans are that factor, whether you choose to ignore that evidence or not.

So you think climate shifted, sometime drastically, in the past WITHOUT humans but blame the last 100-200 years on humans?

That's not science; that some bizarre belief or faith.

The notion is that humans are adversely accelerating it. Which evidence seems to suggest they are.

There is no evidence of that. Look at the IPCC reports above. All predictions (high, medium, low) from every report were too HIGH.

There has been NO not increase in temperature since 1998!

Saying humans are adversely accelerating climate isn't based on facts.

#210 Edited by deeliman (2343 posts) -

@KC_Hokie: What's the source for that chart? Because the info's incorrect.

#211 Edited by deeliman (2343 posts) -
@KC_Hokie said:

@BeardMaster said:

@KC_Hokie said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie said:

@BeardMaster said:

The reason people doubt global warming, is because it hurts businesses and businesses have a major self interest in tricking people to think its fake.

Some people are easily duped, thats your answer.

The scientific community doesnt have any real financial or self interest in global warming being real. The business community has a huge stake in proving it false. Its basically the same as when companies were trying to prove smoking isnt dangerous.

I don't get paid by anyone to point out over the last 500,000 years the earth has been warmer several times. There is nothing unusual about current temperatures in the history of the earth.

I would argue you're easily duped if you think climate did it's own thing for millions of years, but something magical happened in the last 100-200 years which shifts mother nature and climate to human activity.

So you think the climate warms and cools because it feels like doing so? Their's always something forcing it to change, a driving factor behind it. And there's pretty substantial evidence that humans are that factor, whether you choose to ignore that evidence or not.

So you think climate shifted, sometime drastically, in the past WITHOUT humans but blame the last 100-200 years on humans?

That's not science; that some bizarre belief or faith.

The notion is that humans are adversely accelerating it. Which evidence seems to suggest they are.

There is no evidence of that. Look at the IPCC reports above. All predictions (high, medium, low) from every report were too HIGH.

There has been NO not increase in temperature since 1998!

Saying humans are adversely accelerating climate isn't based on facts.


Again not looking at long term trends.

#212 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie: What's the source for that chart? Because the info's incorrect.

Nope try again. Source is IPCC reports. Every single one was way off.

[IPCC AR5 draft figure 1-4 with animated central Global Warming predictions from FAR (1990), SAR (1996), TAR (2001), and AR5 (2007).]

#213 Edited by deeliman (2343 posts) -

@KC_Hokie said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie: What's the source for that chart? Because the info's incorrect.

Nope try again. Source is IPCC reports. Every single one was way off.

[IPCC AR5 draft figure 1-4 with animated central Global Warming predictions from FAR (1990), SAR (1996), TAR (2001), and AR5 (2007).]

I meant where did you get the chart from.

#214 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -
@deeliman said:
@KC_Hokie said:

@BeardMaster said:

@KC_Hokie said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie said:

@BeardMaster said:

The reason people doubt global warming, is because it hurts businesses and businesses have a major self interest in tricking people to think its fake.

Some people are easily duped, thats your answer.

The scientific community doesnt have any real financial or self interest in global warming being real. The business community has a huge stake in proving it false. Its basically the same as when companies were trying to prove smoking isnt dangerous.

I don't get paid by anyone to point out over the last 500,000 years the earth has been warmer several times. There is nothing unusual about current temperatures in the history of the earth.

I would argue you're easily duped if you think climate did it's own thing for millions of years, but something magical happened in the last 100-200 years which shifts mother nature and climate to human activity.

So you think the climate warms and cools because it feels like doing so? Their's always something forcing it to change, a driving factor behind it. And there's pretty substantial evidence that humans are that factor, whether you choose to ignore that evidence or not.

So you think climate shifted, sometime drastically, in the past WITHOUT humans but blame the last 100-200 years on humans?

That's not science; that some bizarre belief or faith.

The notion is that humans are adversely accelerating it. Which evidence seems to suggest they are.

There is no evidence of that. Look at the IPCC reports above. All predictions (high, medium, low) from every report were too HIGH.

There has been NO not increase in temperature since 1998!

Saying humans are adversely accelerating climate isn't based on facts.

Again not looking at long term trends.


And when you look at long term trends you see there is nothing unusual about warming of the last 250 years or 15,000 years.

#215 Edited by deeliman (2343 posts) -

@KC_Hokie: I don't think you understand the concept of a long term trend.

#216 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie: I don't think you understand the concept of a long term trend.

Ok...so twenty years doesn't count. 250 years doesn't count nor does 15,000.

What is your special definition of 'long term trend'?

Another chart showing IPCC reports all off (black line UAH is satellite data and actual temperature)

#217 Edited by MakeMeaSammitch (3732 posts) -

@KC_Hokie said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie: I don't think you understand the concept of a long term trend.

Ok...so twenty years doesn't count. 250 years doesn't count nor does 15,000.

What is your special definition of 'long term trend'?

Another chart showing IPCC reports all off (black line UAH is satellite data and actual temperature)

KC, do you realize everybody makes fun of your graph reading ability because of posts like this?

Where you post data that clearly goes against what you're saying.

#218 Edited by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

@KC_Hokie said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie: I don't think you understand the concept of a long term trend.

Ok...so twenty years doesn't count. 250 years doesn't count nor does 15,000.

What is your special definition of 'long term trend'?

Another chart showing IPCC reports all off (black line UAH is satellite data and actual temperature)

KC, do you realize everybody makes fun of your graph reading ability because of posts like this?

Where you post data that clearly goes against what you're saying.

You can't read graphs then because the black line (reality) is lower than every IPCC prediction.

Here is a more up to date version:

#219 Edited by deeliman (2343 posts) -

@KC_Hokie: Your charts seem to be inconsistent, as the other one had totally different IPCC predictions. And you are aware that there's an uncertainty range for all those predictions, and thus far all IPCC predictions (except for the 1990 one, but that was based on higher CO2 emissions than actually occured) fall in that range of uncertainty, meaning that they were pretty accurate.

Also, your skeptic buddies also made predictions, wanna see how accurate they were?

#220 Edited by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

Every IPCC prediction was wrong and some way off because they assumed CO2 is more powerful than it is. So the reality of CO2 increase and temperatures doesn't fit the notion humans are 'accelerating' temperature.

#221 Edited by deeliman (2343 posts) -
#222 Edited by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie said:

Every IPCC prediction was wrong and some way off because they assumed CO2 is more powerful than it is. So the reality of CO2 increase and temperatures doesn't fit the notion humans are 'accelerating' temperature.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/01/ipcc-global-warming-projections-accurate

Read this.

lol...nope try again. IPCC was wrong every time and overestimated CO2. There is nothing 'unprecedented' about temperature.

The actual science doesn't match the doom and gloom commentary coming from alarmists.

#223 Posted by deeliman (2343 posts) -

@KC_Hokie: My god... how anyone can be this dense is really beyond me. You're not even trying to debunk the arguments the article put forward, you just dismiss it and than ramble on about stuff nobody said.

#224 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie: My god... how anyone can be this dense is really beyond me. You're not even trying to debunk the arguments the article put forward, you just dismiss it and than ramble on about stuff nobody said.

I'm not...the second I saw one of their graphs started in the 1970s I laughed and stopped reading. The first IPCC report didn't even start unit 1990.

#225 Posted by deeliman (2343 posts) -

@KC_Hokie:
Those are the observations, not the predictions. Thanks for amusing us all with your inability to read graphs, though.

#226 Edited by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie: Those are the observations, not the predictions. Thanks for amusing us all with your inability to read graphs, though.

The argument is whether the IPCC was way off or not. And they obviously were.

Starting with graphs that start in the 1950s and go to 2035 are laughable. The argument is 1990 (first report) to present. I love the way that time period is only about 25% of the first graph with more 'predicted' crap following for 25 years.

I love the way these types of people defend past bad prediction with 'trends' of more predicted data.

Come back to reality not fantasy!

#227 Posted by deeliman (2343 posts) -

@KC_Hokie said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie: Those are the observations, not the predictions. Thanks for amusing us all with your inability to read graphs, though.

The argument is whether the IPCC was way off or not. And they obviously were.

Starting with graphs that start in the 1950s and go to 2035 are laughable. The argument is 1990 (first report) to present. I love the way that time period is only about 25% of the first graph with more 'predicted' crap following for 25 years.

I love the way these types of people defend past bad prediction with 'trends' of more predicted data.

Come back to reality not fantasy!

Read the fucking article, then come back to me.

#228 Edited by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie: Those are the observations, not the predictions. Thanks for amusing us all with your inability to read graphs, though.

The argument is whether the IPCC was way off or not. And they obviously were.

Starting with graphs that start in the 1950s and go to 2035 are laughable. The argument is 1990 (first report) to present. I love the way that time period is only about 25% of the first graph with more 'predicted' crap following for 25 years.

I love the way these types of people defend past bad prediction with 'trends' of more predicted data.

Come back to reality not fantasy!

Read the fucking article, then come back to me.

It's not actually based on facts since the IPCC's predictions are wrong. They are arguing the IPCC is right because future predictions match their commentary.

It's a retarded and unscientific argument. It's intellectually dishonest to ignore actual data and fallacies (in the case IPCC) and create fantasy doom and gloom predictions instead.

No wonder the percentage of people in first world countries no longer trust these people nor believe humans drive the climate.

#229 Posted by deeliman (2343 posts) -
@KC_Hokie said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie: Those are the observations, not the predictions. Thanks for amusing us all with your inability to read graphs, though.

The argument is whether the IPCC was way off or not. And they obviously were.

Starting with graphs that start in the 1950s and go to 2035 are laughable. The argument is 1990 (first report) to present. I love the way that time period is only about 25% of the first graph with more 'predicted' crap following for 25 years.

I love the way these types of people defend past bad prediction with 'trends' of more predicted data.

Come back to reality not fantasy!

Read the fucking article, then come back to me.

It's not actually based on facts since the IPCC's predictions are wrong. They are arguing the IPCC is right because future predictions match their commentary.

It's a retarded and unscientific argument. It's intellectually dishonest to ignore actual data and fallacies (in the case IPCC) and create fantasy doom and gloom predictions instead.

No wonder the percentage of people in first world countries no longer trust these people nor believe humans drive the climate.


That's not what it's arguing at all. Your inability to comprehend even the most simple things is really baffling.

#230 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

@deeliman said:
@KC_Hokie said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie: Those are the observations, not the predictions. Thanks for amusing us all with your inability to read graphs, though.

The argument is whether the IPCC was way off or not. And they obviously were.

Starting with graphs that start in the 1950s and go to 2035 are laughable. The argument is 1990 (first report) to present. I love the way that time period is only about 25% of the first graph with more 'predicted' crap following for 25 years.

I love the way these types of people defend past bad prediction with 'trends' of more predicted data.

Come back to reality not fantasy!

Read the fucking article, then come back to me.

It's not actually based on facts since the IPCC's predictions are wrong. They are arguing the IPCC is right because future predictions match their commentary.

It's a retarded and unscientific argument. It's intellectually dishonest to ignore actual data and fallacies (in the case IPCC) and create fantasy doom and gloom predictions instead.

No wonder the percentage of people in first world countries no longer trust these people nor believe humans drive the climate.

That's not what it's arguing at all. Your inability to comprehend even the most simple things is really baffling.

Commentary from some liberal newspaper doesn't change the facts and data. Humans aren't driving climate and there is nothing unusual about current temperature. The doom and gloom predictions of the past were all wrong.

People as a whole just don't listen to the doom and gloom alarmism anymore. Why? Because none of the past predictions were even close.

#231 Posted by BeardMaster (1580 posts) -

@KC_Hokie said:

@deeliman said:
@KC_Hokie said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie: Those are the observations, not the predictions. Thanks for amusing us all with your inability to read graphs, though.

The argument is whether the IPCC was way off or not. And they obviously were.

Starting with graphs that start in the 1950s and go to 2035 are laughable. The argument is 1990 (first report) to present. I love the way that time period is only about 25% of the first graph with more 'predicted' crap following for 25 years.

I love the way these types of people defend past bad prediction with 'trends' of more predicted data.

Come back to reality not fantasy!

Read the fucking article, then come back to me.

It's not actually based on facts since the IPCC's predictions are wrong. They are arguing the IPCC is right because future predictions match their commentary.

It's a retarded and unscientific argument. It's intellectually dishonest to ignore actual data and fallacies (in the case IPCC) and create fantasy doom and gloom predictions instead.

No wonder the percentage of people in first world countries no longer trust these people nor believe humans drive the climate.

That's not what it's arguing at all. Your inability to comprehend even the most simple things is really baffling.

Commentary from some liberal newspaper doesn't change the facts and data. Humans aren't driving climate and there is nothing unusual about current temperature. The doom and gloom predictions of the past were all wrong.

People as a whole just don't listen to the doom and gloom alarmism anymore. Why? Because none of the past predictions were even close.

unfortunately facts and data tend to be liberal. Scientists overwhelmingly identify as liberal for a reason.

#232 Posted by deeliman (2343 posts) -

@KC_Hokie: That's the thing though, the IPCC doesn't really make predictions; they make models, which say in scenario 'x', the climate will change in 'y' fashion. The IPCC also illustrates the "multi-model mean," which averages together all of the individual model simulation runs. This average makes for an easy comparison with the observational data; however, there's no reason to believe the climate will follow that average path, especially in the short-term. If natural factors act to amplify human-caused global surface warming, as they did in the 1990s, the climate is likely to warm faster than the model average in the short-term. If natural factors act to dampen global surface warming, as they have in the 2000s, the climate is likely to warm more slowly than the model average.

When many model simulations are averaged together, the random natural variability in the individual model runs cancel out, and the steady human-caused global warming trend remains left over. But in reality the climate behaves like a single model simulation run, not like the average of all model runs.

#233 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

Interesting.....warming of the last 35 years was nearly identical to the 35 years prior even though CO2 levels increased exponentially.

Guess that's what happens when the IPCC predicts CO2 is way more powerful than it is.

IPCC's prediction of CO2 impact - 5.35 W/m^2

Actual impact - 0.9 W/m^2

Only off by a factor of five! No wonder they were so far off.

#234 Edited by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie: That's the thing though, the IPCC doesn't really make predictions; they make models, which say in scenario 'x', the climate will change in 'y' fashion. The IPCC also illustrates the "multi-model mean," which averages together all of the individual model simulation runs. This average makes for an easy comparison with the observational data; however, there's no reason to believe the climate will follow that average path, especially in the short-term. If natural factors act to amplify human-caused global surface warming, as they did in the 1990s, the climate is likely to warm faster than the model average in the short-term. If natural factors act to dampen global surface warming, as they have in the 2000s, the climate is likely to warm more slowly than the model average.

When many model simulations are averaged together, the random natural variability in the individual model runs cancel out, and the steady human-caused global warming trend remains left over. But in reality the climate behaves like a single model simulation run, not like the average of all model runs.

Their models were all wrong because they don't understand the real impact of CO2. They don't understand climate...the science is in it's infancy.

And when your models are wrong over and over there is something with your inputs. In this case it's CO2 and climate sensitivity.

#235 Posted by deeliman (2343 posts) -

@KC_Hokie said:

Interesting.....warming of the last 35 years was nearly identical to the 35 years prior even though CO2 levels increased exponentially.

Guess that's what happens when the IPCC predicts CO2 is way more powerful than it is.

IPCC's prediction of CO2 impact - 5.35 W/m^2

Actual impact - 0.9 W/m^2

Only off by a factor of five! No wonder they were so far off.

Source?

#236 Edited by deeliman (2343 posts) -

@KC_Hokie said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie: That's the thing though, the IPCC doesn't really make predictions; they make models, which say in scenario 'x', the climate will change in 'y' fashion. The IPCC also illustrates the "multi-model mean," which averages together all of the individual model simulation runs. This average makes for an easy comparison with the observational data; however, there's no reason to believe the climate will follow that average path, especially in the short-term. If natural factors act to amplify human-caused global surface warming, as they did in the 1990s, the climate is likely to warm faster than the model average in the short-term. If natural factors act to dampen global surface warming, as they have in the 2000s, the climate is likely to warm more slowly than the model average.

When many model simulations are averaged together, the random natural variability in the individual model runs cancel out, and the steady human-caused global warming trend remains left over. But in reality the climate behaves like a single model simulation run, not like the average of all model runs.

Their models were all wrong because they don't understand the real impact of CO2. They don't understand climate...the science is in it's infancy.

And when your models are wrong over and over there is something with your inputs. In this case it's CO2 and climate sensitivity.

The models weren't supposed to be predictions, the models only say if x happens the climate changes in y fashion. The made a few of those models. and also released an average of them, and skeptics use that to say the IPCC is wrong, even though they never made any prediction and the average isn't supposed to be one.

#237 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie: That's the thing though, the IPCC doesn't really make predictions; they make models, which say in scenario 'x', the climate will change in 'y' fashion. The IPCC also illustrates the "multi-model mean," which averages together all of the individual model simulation runs. This average makes for an easy comparison with the observational data; however, there's no reason to believe the climate will follow that average path, especially in the short-term. If natural factors act to amplify human-caused global surface warming, as they did in the 1990s, the climate is likely to warm faster than the model average in the short-term. If natural factors act to dampen global surface warming, as they have in the 2000s, the climate is likely to warm more slowly than the model average.

When many model simulations are averaged together, the random natural variability in the individual model runs cancel out, and the steady human-caused global warming trend remains left over. But in reality the climate behaves like a single model simulation run, not like the average of all model runs.

Their models were all wrong because they don't understand the real impact of CO2. They don't understand climate...the science is in it's infancy.

And when your models are wrong over and over there is something with your inputs. In this case it's CO2 and climate sensitivity.

The models weren't supposed to be predictions, the models only say if x happens the climate changes in y fashion. The made a few of those models. and also released an average of them, and skeptics use that to say the IPCC is wrong, even though they never made any prediction and the average isn't supposed to be one.

Have you actually read an IPCC report? I have and they make all sorts of predictions with commentary.

#238 Edited by deeliman (2343 posts) -

@KC_Hokie said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie: That's the thing though, the IPCC doesn't really make predictions; they make models, which say in scenario 'x', the climate will change in 'y' fashion. The IPCC also illustrates the "multi-model mean," which averages together all of the individual model simulation runs. This average makes for an easy comparison with the observational data; however, there's no reason to believe the climate will follow that average path, especially in the short-term. If natural factors act to amplify human-caused global surface warming, as they did in the 1990s, the climate is likely to warm faster than the model average in the short-term. If natural factors act to dampen global surface warming, as they have in the 2000s, the climate is likely to warm more slowly than the model average.

When many model simulations are averaged together, the random natural variability in the individual model runs cancel out, and the steady human-caused global warming trend remains left over. But in reality the climate behaves like a single model simulation run, not like the average of all model runs.

Their models were all wrong because they don't understand the real impact of CO2. They don't understand climate...the science is in it's infancy.

And when your models are wrong over and over there is something with your inputs. In this case it's CO2 and climate sensitivity.

The models weren't supposed to be predictions, the models only say if x happens the climate changes in y fashion. The made a few of those models. and also released an average of them, and skeptics use that to say the IPCC is wrong, even though they never made any prediction and the average isn't supposed to be one.

Have you actually read an IPCC report? I have and they make all sorts of predictions with commentary.

I doubt you've ever read an entire IPCC report, those things can be 1000 pages long.

#239 Edited by MakeMeaSammitch (3732 posts) -

@KC_Hokie said:

@MakeMeaSammitch said:

@KC_Hokie said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie: I don't think you understand the concept of a long term trend.

Ok...so twenty years doesn't count. 250 years doesn't count nor does 15,000.

What is your special definition of 'long term trend'?

Another chart showing IPCC reports all off (black line UAH is satellite data and actual temperature)

KC, do you realize everybody makes fun of your graph reading ability because of posts like this?

Where you post data that clearly goes against what you're saying.

You can't read graphs then because the black line (reality) is lower than every IPCC prediction.

Here is a more up to date version:

It's still going up though.

#240 Edited by _en1gma_ (14934 posts) -

By being intellectually dishonest. Committing intellectual suicide.

#241 Edited by GOGOGOGURT (4470 posts) -

Denial? More like accepting the facts. It's a political problem, not a human problem.

So much data has been manipulated it's up to you to decide. However, it's known that another ice age is due withing the next century, so global warming won't be an issue much longer.

#242 Edited by ultimate-k (2348 posts) -

Never believe the so called official stories, I see though our so called leaders, they don't, care for us, they just see us as sheeple and beasts to be controlled. They always have their agenda deceiving and manipulating us to get what they want.

#243 Posted by _Cadbury_ (2936 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie: My god... how anyone can be this dense is really beyond me. You're not even trying to debunk the arguments the article put forward, you just dismiss it and than ramble on about stuff nobody said.

By article you mean blog...
Blog with the first graph shown clearly highlighting how their projected trend is off from 1998, i.e. did not predict the stall in temperature increase. Sure some of the projected trends are about right, but the vast majority are higher, and if they are already off by that much, the projections will only become more inaccurate as you look further ahead, unless actual temperatures arbitrarily and rapidly increase again up to the level of most of those projections.

Also not sure what he's on about with this 'model simulation' idea - a model does NOT make different predictions for different 'simulations' of said model. The only way it will make a different prediction is if the data it is based off changes (different recordings of past temperatures are used etc.) OR if the model includes different variables - in other words, it is not the same model.

He also tries to explain the stall as being due to El Nino during 1998, however, the following trendline remains flat from that point - it doesn't decrease, which you would expect if 1998 was unusually hot. If you took out 1998 (hot) and 1999 and 2000 (comparatively cool), then you would still find yourself with a flat line. If anything, temperatures for 1999 and 2000 compensate for 1998's temperature by leveraging the trendline upwards (making it steeper). Seems like he's the one cherry picking by suggesting 1998 shouldn't count.

#244 Edited by Nibroc420 (13567 posts) -

@KC_Hokie said:

You can't read graphs then because the black line (reality) is lower than every IPCC prediction.

Here is a more up to date version:

It's still going up though.

Of course it's going up, we're still coming out of an Ice Age...

#245 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (3732 posts) -

Never believe the so called official stories, I see though our so called leaders, they don't, care for us, they just see us as sheeple and beasts to be controlled. They always have their agenda deceiving and manipulating us to get what they want.

and this is why conservatives get a rap for being stupid.

#247 Posted by deeliman (2343 posts) -

@Nibroc420 said:

@MakeMeaSammitch said:

@KC_Hokie said:

You can't read graphs then because the black line (reality) is lower than every IPCC prediction.

Here is a more up to date version:

It's still going up though.

Of course it's going up, we're still coming out of an Ice Age...

Are you really that dense?

He thinks the climate has a will of it's own, and changes because it feels like it.

#248 Posted by deeliman (2343 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie: My god... how anyone can be this dense is really beyond me. You're not even trying to debunk the arguments the article put forward, you just dismiss it and than ramble on about stuff nobody said.

By article you mean blog...

Blog with the first graph shown clearly highlighting how their projected trend is off from 1998, i.e. did not predict the stall in temperature increase. Sure some of the projected trends are about right, but the vast majority are higher, and if they are already off by that much, the projections will only become more inaccurate as you look further ahead, unless actual temperatures arbitrarily and rapidly increase again up to the level of most of those projections.

Also not sure what he's on about with this 'model simulation' idea - a model does NOT make different predictions for different 'simulations' of said model. The only way it will make a different prediction is if the data it is based off changes (different recordings of past temperatures are used etc.) OR if the model includes different variables - in other words, it is not the same model.

He also tries to explain the stall as being due to El Nino during 1998, however, the following trendline remains flat from that point - it doesn't decrease, which you would expect if 1998 was unusually hot. If you took out 1998 (hot) and 1999 and 2000 (comparatively cool), then you would still find yourself with a flat line. If anything, temperatures for 1999 and 2000 compensate for 1998's temperature by leveraging the trendline upwards (making it steeper). Seems like he's the one cherry picking by suggesting 1998 shouldn't count.

Of course the projections will get more inaccurate over time, that's why they make new ones.

And the models don't make predictions at all; they make projections. Big difference.

No, because that's not how trend lines work. If you want to the trend for, let's say, 1980 to 2000, you pick one point at 1980, and one at 2000, and draw a straight line from 1980 to 2000. It doesn't matter if one years was extremely hot or one extremely cold, that line stays the same. And he's not saying 1998 doesn't count; he's saying that it's a poor starting point to look for a trend.

#249 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (7720 posts) -

Never believe the so called official stories, I see though our so called leaders, they don't, care for us, they just see us as sheeple and beasts to be controlled. They always have their agenda deceiving and manipulating us to get what they want.

All glory to the hypnotoad. All glory to the hypnotoad. THE HYPNOTOAD.

#250 Edited by _Cadbury_ (2936 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@_Cadbury_ said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie: My god... how anyone can be this dense is really beyond me. You're not even trying to debunk the arguments the article put forward, you just dismiss it and than ramble on about stuff nobody said.

By article you mean blog...

Blog with the first graph shown clearly highlighting how their projected trend is off from 1998, i.e. did not predict the stall in temperature increase. Sure some of the projected trends are about right, but the vast majority are higher, and if they are already off by that much, the projections will only become more inaccurate as you look further ahead, unless actual temperatures arbitrarily and rapidly increase again up to the level of most of those projections.

Also not sure what he's on about with this 'model simulation' idea - a model does NOT make different predictions for different 'simulations' of said model. The only way it will make a different prediction is if the data it is based off changes (different recordings of past temperatures are used etc.) OR if the model includes different variables - in other words, it is not the same model.

He also tries to explain the stall as being due to El Nino during 1998, however, the following trendline remains flat from that point - it doesn't decrease, which you would expect if 1998 was unusually hot. If you took out 1998 (hot) and 1999 and 2000 (comparatively cool), then you would still find yourself with a flat line. If anything, temperatures for 1999 and 2000 compensate for 1998's temperature by leveraging the trendline upwards (making it steeper). Seems like he's the one cherry picking by suggesting 1998 shouldn't count.

Of course the projections will get more inaccurate over time, that's why they make new ones.

And the models don't make predictions at all; they make projections. Big difference.

No, because that's not how trend lines work. If you want to the trend for, let's say, 1980 to 2000, you pick one point at 1980, and one at 2000, and draw a straight line from 1980 to 2000. It doesn't matter if one years was extremely hot or one extremely cold, that line stays the same. And he's not saying 1998 doesn't count; he's saying that it's a poor starting point to look for a trend.

The point is their current models are obviously not very accurate and shouldn't be taken to mean much. They're made in the first place to estimate temperatures in the future, something they don't seem to be doing so well.

... Seriously? The models PREDICT the temperature at a given time for a given set of values on the predicting variables. There is not a difference in 'prediction' and 'projection'. The projected trend is the series of PREDICTED temperatures given the set of variables in the model. Derp.

No one is singling out 1998-2013 and saying 'look this is the trend'. They're saying the trend flattens from 1998-2012, which it does. It's very evident in that first graph - temperatures haven't been so flat for so long since 1950-1970.