• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Failure of Official Global Warming Predictions

Jack Hays said:
It is hard for PD to base an effective argument on his inability to understand graphs.
Click to expand...

Oh? Since you claim to understand Lyin' Lord Monckton's graph better than I do, perhaps you can tell us all what YOU think Lyin' Lord Monckton claimed as the range of "IPCC (1990) low-end predictions".

Let's see if you can even understand the very graph you yourself posted.
 
Poor Debater said:
Monckton is lying, and you know he's lying.

Jack Hays, "The Man Who Trusts Liars".
Click to expand...

Poor Debater said:
That figure is for one scenario only, the highest emissions scenario (out of four scenarios). It does not reflect the entire range, as Lyin' Lord Monckton falsely claims on his graph. Even beyond that, that highest scenario never happened, because of concerted international action.

Denier FAIL.
Click to expand...

Don't be such a poor loser.
 
Poor Debater said:
Oh? Since you claim to understand Lyin' Lord Monckton's graph better than I do, perhaps you can tell us all what YOU think Lyin' Lord Monckton claimed as the range of "IPCC (1990) low-end predictions".

Let's see if you can even understand the very graph you yourself posted.
Click to expand...

". . . Some have said that the IPCC projection zone on our graphs should show exactly the values that the IPCC actually projects for the A2 scenario. However, as will soon become apparent, the IPCC’s “global-warming” projections for the early part of the present century appear to have been, in effect, artificially detuned to conform more closely to observation. In compiling our graphs, we decided not merely to accept the IPCC’s projections as being a true representation of the warming that using the IPCC’s own methods for determining climate sensitivity would lead us to expect, but to establish just how much warming the use of the IPCC’s methods would predict, and to take that warming as the basis for the definition of the IPCC projection zone.
Let us illustrate the problem with a concrete example. On the A2 scenario, the IPCC projects a warming of 0.2 K/decade for 2000-2020. However, given the IPCC’s projection that CO2 concentration will grow exponentially from 368 ppmv in 2000 towards 836 ppmv by 2100, CO2 should have been 368e[SUP](10/100)[/SUP][SUP]ln(836/368)[/SUP] = 399.5 ppmv in 2010, and equilibrium warming should thus have been 4.7 ln(399.5/368) = 0.39 K, which we reduce by one-fifth to yield transient warming of 0.31 K, more than half as much again as the IPCC’s 0.2 K. Of course, CO2 concentration in 2010 was only 388 ppmv, and, as the SPPI’s temperature graph shows (this time using the RSS satellite dataset), warming occurred at only 0.3 K/century: about a tenth of the transient warming that use of the IPCC’s methods would lead us to expect.

Barely significant warming: The RSS satellite data for the first decade of the 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century show only a tenth of the warming that use of the IPCC’s methods would lead us to expect.
We make no apology, therefore, for labelling as “IPCC” a projection zone that is calculated on the basis of the methods described by the IPCC itself. Our intention in publishing these graphs is to provide a visual illustration of the extent to which the methods relied upon by the IPCC itself in determining climate sensitivity are reliable. . . ."
 
Poor Debater said:
No, it's science. You've been lied to, by people who were well paid to lie.
Click to expand...

Bo, it's philosophy. You've been lied to by people who were well paid to lie.
 
Jack Hays said:
Climate sensitivity
[h=1]The Transient Climate Response (TCR) revisited from Observations (once more)[/h] Guest essay By Frank Bosse In a recent blog post at Dr. Judith Curry’s website the author Nicholas Lewis analyzes the climate sensivity from observations and concludes a TCR of about 1.33 which is very stable versus different periods (see Table 1 of the linked post). Here I want to use a slightly different method and…
Click to expand...


And another example of why we skeptics would be among the "97%" based on how the questions were asked.

The skepticism is for the catastrophic predictions that rely of climate sensitivity that observational data simply doesn't support.
 
jmotivator said:
And another example of why we skeptics would be among the "97%" based on how the questions were asked.

The skepticism is for the catastrophic predictions that rely of climate sensitivity that observational data simply doesn't support.
Click to expand...

Since you accept that this represents observational data, then you must also accept that humans are responsible for over 90% of the warming. So thanks for that.
 
Jack Hays said:
Climate sensitivity
[h=1]The Transient Climate Response (TCR) revisited from Observations (once more)[/h] Guest essay By Frank Bosse In a recent blog post at Dr. Judith Curry’s website the author Nicholas Lewis analyzes the climate sensivity from observations and concludes a TCR of about 1.33 which is very stable versus different periods (see Table 1 of the linked post). Here I want to use a slightly different method and…
Click to expand...

Yeah, "robust" all right, in the sense that if you chop off half the data, you can manufacture the result you want.

Meanwhile, if you go back to an 1880 start date, the TCR from the same computations turns out to be:

Cowtan & Way: 1.64
BEST: 1.74
GISS: 1.71
NCEI: 1.66

Or, if you pick a later start date, like 1975, you get:

Cowtan & Way: 2.14
BEST: 2.08
GISS: 2.03
NCEI: 1.97

Imagine that. A denier cherry-picked a start date.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
Click to expand...

And then there's the very odd fact that author Frank Bosse found a slope of .37 (which is correct) and from that deduced a TCR of 1.33 -- which can only happen if Bosse believes doubling CO2 results in 3.6 W/m², instead of the correct value of 3.8 to 3.9.

But then, he's from Denierstan, so we can't expect him to know science.
 
Poor Debater said:
Yeah, "robust" all right, in the sense that if you chop off half the data, you can manufacture the result you want.

Meanwhile, if you go back to an 1880 start date, the TCR from the same computations turns out to be:

Cowtan & Way: 1.64
BEST: 1.74
GISS: 1.71
NCEI: 1.66

Or, if you pick a later start date, like 1975, you get:

Cowtan & Way: 2.14
BEST: 2.08
GISS: 2.03
NCEI: 1.97

Imagine that. A denier cherry-picked a start date.
Click to expand...

I don't see a problem.

Here I want to use a slightly different method and another temperature record, the Cowtan/Way (C/W) Chemistry, The University of York ) series. In the discussions of the post at Judy Currys website there were big “?” if the result of TCR would also stand if one uses the “land- infilled” Data mostly for the polar regions of the earth. Therefore I’ll use this record to show the difference to HadCRUT4 (that was used by N. Lewis in his calculations) in the output.
I investigate the span 1940…2015. This includes the latest increase of the Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) , see Fig. 1, and avoids the periods of temperature data with great uncertainty in the early years of the observations.
 
Poor Debater said:
And then there's the very odd fact that author Frank Bosse found a slope of .37 (which is correct) and from that deduced a TCR of 1.33 -- which can only happen if Bosse believes doubling CO2 results in 3.6 W/m², instead of the correct value of 3.8 to 3.9.

But then, he's from Denierstan, so we can't expect him to know science.
Click to expand...

I suggest you should note your concern in the comments at the end of his post.
 
Poor Debater said:
Since you accept that this represents observational data, then you must also accept that humans are responsible for over 90% of the warming. So thanks for that.
Click to expand...

HAH! Nope. I am arguing that skeptics don't deny that CO2 is a GHG and you science deniers want to believe. They disagree on the degree of the anthropogenic effect. They also happen to disagree among skeptics as to the degree of effect as well, they just aren't science deniers looking to squelch findings that are different from their conclusions like you science deniers are.

By pointing out that this study shows a non-catastrophic level of anthropogenic warming is simply stating a fact, not my thoughts on the subject.
 
jmotivator said:
HAH! Nope. I am arguing that skeptics don't deny that CO2 is a GHG and you science deniers want to believe. They disagree on the degree of the anthropogenic effect.
Click to expand...

The "skeptic" whose writing you accepted, in turn accepted and used the IPCC forcings from AR5 in his computations. And that shows that 99% of all forcing (1750-2011) is anthropogenic, and 78% of all forcing is CO2. Are you now saying that the WUWT "skeptic" whose work you just endorsed is, in fact, wrong?
 
Poor Debater said:
The "skeptic" whose writing you accepted, in turn accepted and used the IPCC forcings from AR5 in his computations. And that shows that 99% of all forcing (1750-2011) is anthropogenic, and 78% of all forcing is CO2. Are you now saying that the WUWT "skeptic" whose work you just endorsed is, in fact, wrong?
Click to expand...

LOL, no. I simply argued that this paper would fall within the "97%", but finds something very different than the catastrophic AGW alarmists preach.

That doesn't mean I agree or disagree with it, it is simply pointing out the uselessness of the "97%" statistic.
 
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/15/a-new-lower-estimate-of-equilibrium-climate-sensitivity/

Steve McIntyre calls attention to a new paper by J. Ray Bates Meteorology and Climate Centre, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University College Dublin, Ireland in a journal called Earth and Space Science. The paper says that equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) could be as low as 1°C.



Here’s the abstract.

Estimating Climate Sensitivity Using Two-zone Energy Balance Models

Estimates of 2xCO2 equilibrium climate sensitivity (EqCS) derive from running global climate models (GCMs) to equilibrium. Estimates of effective climate sensitivity (EfCS) are the corresponding quantities obtained using transient GCM output or observations. The EfCS approach uses an accompanying energy balance model (EBM), the zero-dimensional model (ZDM) being standard. GCM values of EqCS and EfCS vary widely [IPCC range: (1.5, 4.5)°C] and have failed to converge over the past 35 years. Recently, attempts have been made to refine the EfCS approach by using two-zone (tropical/extratropical) EBMs. When applied using satellite radiation data, these give low and tightly-constrained EfCS values, in the neighbourhood of 1°C. These low observational EfCS/two-zone EBM values have been questioned because (a) they disagree with higher observational EfCS/ZDM values, and (b) the EfCS/two-zone EBM values given by GCMs are poorly correlated with the standard GCM sensitivity estimates. The validity of the low observational EfCS/two-zone EBM values is here explored, with focus on the limitations of the observational EfCS/ZDM approach, the disagreement between the GCM and observational radiative responses to surface temperature perturbations in the tropics, and on the modified EfCS values provided by an extended twozone EBM that includes an explicit parameterization of dynamical heat transport. The results support the low observational EfCS/two-zone EBM values, indicating that objections (a) and (b) to these values both need to be reconsidered. It is shown that in the EBM with explicit dynamical heat transport the traditional formulism of climate feedbacks can break down because of lack of additivity.
​
 

[h=1]Climate science appears to be obsessively focused on modeling – Billions of research dollars are being spent in this single minded process[/h] Climate Modeling Dominates Climate Science By PATRICK J. MICHAELS and David E. Wojick What we did We found two pairs of surprising statistics. To do this we first searched the entire literature of science for the last ten years, using Google Scholar, looking for modeling. There are roughly 900,000 peer reviewed journal articles that use…
Continue reading →
 

[h=1]Introducing the global warming speedometer[/h] A single devastating graph shows official climate predictions were wild By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley The new global warming speedometer shows in a single telling graph just how badly the model-based predictions made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have over-predicted global warming. The speedometer for the 15 years 4 months January 2001 to…
Continue reading →
 
Climate Models
[h=1]Climate Models Don’t Work[/h] Guest essay by Larry Hamlin In February 2016 climate scientist Dr. John Christy presented testimony to Congress demonstrating that climate models grossly exaggerate and over estimate the impact of atmospheric CO2 levels on global temperatures . Dr. Christy noted in his testimony that “models over-warm the tropical atmosphere by a factor of approximately 3″. NOAA climate…
 
“Beginning in a decade or two, scientists expect the warming of the atmosphere to melt the polar icecaps…”
NY Times, 1985
 
We knew this already.

We knew for a fact that their modeling was either corrupted or they are purposely distorting the modeling with their numbers.
however if I get 100m dollars for my data to tell you that then why shouldn't I do it?

who is going to question the people leading the charge are the people handing out the money and doing the peer reviews.
there is a reason that is a lack of non-bias papers in this field. the people in charge refuse to let their be any.

if it doesn't contain global warming non-sense then it doesn't get published that is the way that it works.
pretty much backs up the emails that were taken off the server.

my daughter wants to be a meteorologist and I don't know if I want her getting involved in that mess.
 
Earthling said:
“Beginning in a decade or two, scientists expect the warming of the atmosphere to melt the polar icecaps…”
NY Times, 1985
Click to expand...

ef8ae3bb83d128d2dffce7d755cecd89.jpg
 
This is really not a topic I often get involved in, simply because most don't want to hear what others have to say. Let me say this. No matter if you believe in climate change, or its causes, doing what is right for our planet, our future and the future of our children, should be in everyone's best interest.
We can't be selfish about it though. We can't deny people a dignified existence to save the planet , nor must we abuse the planet for our pleasure when alternatives exist.
We should strive to do our best whenever feasible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom