Jump to content
  • Hey There!

    Please register to see fewer ads and a better viewing experience:100_Emoji_42x42:

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

stirs

Here comes the Sun

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, twylyght said:

I all but snapped a picture and posted with an arrow to it.  Should I be doing that instead?

Youve posted nothing as of yet.  Why would I expect you to start now - perhaps you have a meme you can post to try to change the subject.

 

To note we have this observed data:

1408.png?w=700%26q=55%26auto=format%26us

 

This is from the report you posted since you are too dishonest to show what your work.

 

FAR_projections.png

 

Hmmmm notice anything comparing the two graphs twylght?

 

Here is more current data - hmmm how is the IPCC looking?

 

590x336_02211709_globalt_1880-1920basena

 

Looks like we are around 1 degree in warming right now - 2018.  By 2020 set to be at 1.1 degree which would put us near 1.2 by 2025.  Hmmm looking at 1990 IPCC prediction....1.30- 1.35 best estimate? So .1 - .2 degrees below best estimate...wow how horrible.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Okay then..... from you:

Quote

Since 1990, global surface temperatures have warmed at a rate of about 0.15°C per decade, within the range of model projections of about 0.10 to 0.35°C per decade. As the IPCC notes,

"global climate models generally simulate global temperatures that compare well with observations over climate timescales ... The 1990–2012 data have been shown to be consistent with the [1990 IPCC report] projections, and not consistent with zero trend from 1990 ... the trend in globally-averaged surface temperatures falls within the range of the previous IPCC projections."

From 1990 IPCC:

Quote

Based on current model results, we predict:
• under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade)

Take that from GISSs own reporting, over the past 2.8 decades since this report was put forward for the purpose of creating policy, the projection should have put us at an increase to 1.0 degree Celsius (for the lowest end) or an increase to 1.84 degrees Celsius (for the high side).  As a result, we didn't even reach the lowest end of the projection on this report.  This was from the group of the best experts on the planet at the time.

Since that time, the global emissions haven't been "Business-as-Usual" per this prediction, but ramped up thanks to the US, China and now India.  Yet.... here were are.... still not hitting that "point of no return" line that was perfectly propagandized for the Al Gore tour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, twylyght said:

Okay then..... from you:

From 1990 IPCC:

Take that from GISSs own reporting, over the past 2.8 decades since this report was put forward for the purpose of creating policy, the projection should have put us at an increase to 1.0 degree Celsius (for the lowest end) or an increase to 1.84 degrees Celsius (for the high side).  As a result, we didn't even reach the lowest end of the projection on this report.  This was from the group of the best experts on the planet at the time.

Since that time, the global emissions haven't been "Business-as-Usual" per this prediction, but ramped up thanks to the US, China and now India.  Yet.... here were are.... still not hitting that "point of no return" line that was perfectly propagandized for the Al Gore tour.

As you GISS link shows 2017 had us at .9 increase over base we know more then half of that is from post 1990. You note the average over the next century - as we can see the rate increases hence during the first part of the century we are expected it to be lower then the second part.  

 

This was the IPCC business as usual graph from 1990:

FAR_projections.png&key=300fcb6dbd76266a

 

 

We are above the low estimate and close to the best.  Yes China, india, etc have been increased players in CO2 admissions but globally we were not off from what was reported in 1990.  But your initial point was going back almost 30 years to prove the IPCC wrong.  You did not do that.

 

FAR_Forcing.png

 

We are currently sitting at 400ppm - once again IPCC in 1990 was pretty spot on for what they used in business as usual models.

 

Should we talk about how things have gotten updated and the Ocean are holding more warmth then we predicted 30 years ago and the updated modeling?  Or do you want to go back 30 years and talk about fractions things were off of back then while still being expected ranges.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Fryfan said:

As you GISS link shows 2017 had us at .9 increase over base we know more then half of that is from post 1990. You note the average over the next century - as we can see the rate increases hence during the first part of the century we are expected it to be lower then the second part.  

This was the IPCC business as usual graph from 1990:

FAR_projections.png&key=300fcb6dbd76266a

We are above the low estimate and close to the best.  Yes China, india, etc have been increased players in CO2 admissions but globally we were not off from what was reported in 1990.  But your initial point was going back almost 30 years to prove the IPCC wrong.  You did not do that.

FAR_Forcing.png

We are currently sitting at 400ppm - once again IPCC in 1990 was pretty spot on for what they used in business as usual models.

Should we talk about how things have gotten updated and the Ocean are holding more warmth then we predicted 30 years ago and the updated modeling?  Or do you want to go back 30 years and talk about fractions things were off of back then while still being expected ranges.

*sigh*

1) Any model that these jokers are putting forward would have to be spot on prior to 1990.  Otherwise, their "predictive" model would be for poo when looking at the time when they are presenting.

2) The conservative end of their prediction is 0.1 degrees Celsius higher than observed results to today. 

The point of what I was trying to get through your thick skull is that the best predictions from then were still off when put before the guys that are making laws based off of these projections.  Scream all you like, but if you insist on not being able to do math and understand simple variance, then there's nothing I can do for you.  This is the reason for introducing empiricism into the scientific method.  We can all the amazing thought experiments in the world, but it doesn't mean squat if it doesn't bear out predictable results.

What you are insisting on forwarding is another narrative spelling out the apocalypse without gathering the evidence first.  Lots of religions have gone that path before.  You are following that same path by opting for faith rather than observable results (and in this case, the contrary).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, twylyght said:

*sigh*

1) Any model that these jokers are putting forward would have to be spot on prior to 1990.  Otherwise, their "predictive" model would be for poo when looking at the time when they are presenting.

2) The conservative end of their prediction is 0.1 degrees Celsius higher than observed results to today. 

The point of what I was trying to get through your thick skull is that the best predictions from then were still off when put before the guys that are making laws based off of these projections.  Scream all you like, but if you insist on not being able to do math and understand simple variance, then there's nothing I can do for you.  This is the reason for introducing empiricism into the scientific method.  We can all the amazing thought experiments in the world, but it doesn't mean squat if it doesn't bear out predictable results.

What you are insisting on forwarding is another narrative spelling out the apocalypse without gathering the evidence first.  Lots of religions have gone that path before.  You are following that same path by opting for faith rather than observable results (and in this case, the contrary).

1. Their prediction was spot on around 400pm today.

Here is the a graphical overlay:

ipcc_ddc_co2_scenarios_zoom.jpg

 

2. Beyond that you cant understand graphical mapping.  You take the estimate over a century (0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade) and you are extrapolating that over the 1st 4th of the century.  Observing and reading graphs show you the rate accelerates and we ARE in current predicted ranges.

That prediction graphed out - you once again are ignoring we ARE in predicted ranges - the rate accelerates which will bring us towards that .3 a decade prediction over the next 8 decades)

FAR_projections.png&key=300fcb6dbd76266a

 

The point is you just are really bad at this and laughably wrong again and again.   You have seen the overlays can map data points yourself.  We ARE in the predicted ranges from the IPCC 1990 report.  I wont take your purposely bad estimating (using the average for a full century to measure against the 1st two and a half decades) when everyone can plainly observe the earlier decades at a slower rate.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay.... what was the delta for temperature change (per GISS) in 1990.

Hint: It wasn't 0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Fryfan said:

As you GISS link shows 2017 had us at .9 increase over base we know more then half of that is from post 1990.

 

20 minutes ago, twylyght said:

Okay.... what was the delta for temperature change (per GISS) in 1990.

Hint: It wasn't 0

 

So you want me to reference back what I stated 18 hours ago?

 

Care to acknowledge you biggest problem - that your extrapolating the century average predicted growth to what the first 2 and a half decades should be when it clearly accelerates?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the data set from 1980 - 2017.  The first column is the yearly Nasa number, the second is the smoothing number. If you notice the last decade of growth has accelerated above previous decades as predicted.  It is expected to accelerate a bit more.

 

--

1980	0.27	0.19
1981	0.33	0.21
1982	0.13	0.22
1983	0.31	0.21
1984	0.16	0.21
1985	0.12	0.23
1986	0.18	0.25
1987	0.33	0.28
1988	0.41	0.31
1989	0.28	0.34
1990	0.44	0.34
1991	0.41	0.33
1992	0.22	0.33
1993	0.24	0.33
1994	0.31	0.34
1995	0.44	0.37
1996	0.33	0.4
1997	0.47	0.43
1998	0.62	0.45
1999	0.4	0.48
2000	0.4	0.5
2001	0.54	0.52
2002	0.62	0.55
2003	0.61	0.58
2004	0.53	0.6
2005	0.67	0.61
2006	0.62	0.61
2007	0.64	0.61
2008	0.52	0.62
2009	0.63	0.62
2010	0.7	0.62
2011	0.57	0.63
2012	0.61	0.67
2013	0.64	0.71
2014	0.73	0.77
2015	0.86	0.83
2016	0.99	0.89
2017	0.9	0.95

 

I never stated we were at 0 in 1990 - I stated we have more then doubled since that time frame which is true.   

I also stated we are in the range on the graph - which stretches back to 1850 and shows us at 0.  The data in the  1990 IPCC report of us rising as presented graphically shows that doubling from 1990 - 2017.  So when we are currently hovering close to a 1 degree rise it is valid to say that was in the 1990 prediction.  

 

FAR_projections.png&key=300fcb6dbd76266a

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Fryfan said:

So you want me to reference back what I stated 18 hours ago?

Care to acknowledge you biggest problem - that your extrapolating the century average predicted growth to what the first 2 and a half decades should be when it clearly accelerates?

Stay on track sunshine.  The original point was not about the rate of change as if this past century is supposed to be representative of every other century in the history of global temperature.  The point is that the predictive model used the most conservative of estimates by the foremost minds in the field to get in front of a committee for the purposes of creating regulations. 

Even after that, the most conservative number put before that committee for review still overshot the prediction.  Regarding that pretty little table you posted, let's go ahead and have more fun with numbers (since you're intent on lying with statistics).  Rather than a two year rolling average, lets take the raw data first. 

The average temperature delta for 1990 was 0.44.  The average temperature delta for 2017 is 0.9.  That's a difference of..... wait for it.... .46.  Divide that by 2.7 (the number of decades for that time span and we come to an average of change of temperature of ~.17 per decade.... If you're keeping score, this is 15% less than the bottom end of the most conservative estimate.

Let's say we wanted to fudge the numbers worse than what you're doing.  We'll just take the data up to 2014.... showing a delta of 0.73.  Using the same starting point at 1990, that gives us a new change of ~.12 per decade.  Oh no.... That's almost 40% less than the bottom end of the most conservative projection.

Scratch all that.  Let's take your approach.  Rather than doing a 2-year rolling average, we'll do a 10-year (that's a decade) rolling average.  That give us THIS data set:

1990 0.269
1991 0.277
1992 0.286
1993 0.279
1994 0.294
1995 0.326
1996 0.341
1997 0.355
1998 0.376
1999 0.388
2000 0.384
2001 0.397
2002 0.437
2003 0.474
2004 0.496
2005 0.519
2006 0.548
2007 0.565
2008 0.555
2009 0.578
2010 0.608
2011 0.611
2012 0.61
2013 0.613
2014 0.633
2015 0.652
2016 0.689
2017 0.715

So... NOW, using that same methodology, we're looking at a change of ~.165 per decade.  That still puts us at almost 17.5% less than the bottom end of the most conservative estimate provided to LAWMAKERS for their scrutiny.  If we're looking at the shortfall from the top end of their most conservative projections (1.35 over the span of 2.7 decades), that puts us at a shortfall of being ~67% off the mark.

Well, poo.... it looks like you found THE ONE way to make this projection barely work!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay.  You still dont understand that the rate of temperature increase is predicted to accelerate.  You are still using a century average and saying the first couple decades is below that average.  I agree it is the numbers clearly show that but the IPCC never predicted straight line growth.    What you fail to understand is we are in the predicted range and to get to that century average we are planing to accelerate and have accelerated.  

 

If you want to have a honest debate things you can not continue to misrepresent things so boldly and expect people to take you serious - sunshine.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Fryfan said:

Okay.  You still dont understand that the rate of temperature increase is predicted to accelerate.  You are still using a century average and saying the first couple decades is below that average.  I agree it is the numbers clearly show that but the IPCC never predicted straight line growth.    What you fail to understand is we are in the predicted range and to get to that century average we are planing to accelerate and have accelerated.  

If you want to have a honest debate things you can not continue to misrepresent things so boldly and expect people to take you serious - sunshine.

So... I can spell out the math for you, how they are manipulating the numbers for the purposes of presentation, and try to give you the benefit of the doubt and all you have to fall back on is some authority that you don't understand with a pretty graph.

Got it.  This is your brain on religious faith.  Shall I sign you up for Scientology membership?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, twylyght said:

So... I can spell out the math for you, how they are manipulating the numbers for the purposes of presentation, and try to give you the benefit of the doubt and all you have to fall back on is some authority that you don't understand with a pretty graph.

Got it.  This is your brain on religious faith.  Shall I sign you up for Scientology membership?

dude try this with someone that is actually not bright.  I do predictive modeling as a career - I can read graphs.  

You have for 3 pages used a century long average and tried to state we should see that decade of growth per decade.  That would be straight line growth.  The IPCC did not predict and does not predict straight line growth.

 

I am sure when you finally realize your error you will claim you were just baiting or being childish on purpose to prove something but all it shows is you cant read graphs and dont want to admit your errors.   I look forward to your name calling and deflection as you come to realize once again you failed at math.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Fryfan said:

dude try this with someone that is actually not bright.  I do predictive modeling as a career - I can read graphs.  

You have for 3 pages used a century long average and tried to state we should see that decade of growth per decade.  That would be straight line growth.  The IPCC did not predict and does not predict straight line growth.

I am sure when you finally realize your error you will claim you were just baiting or being childish on purpose to prove something but all it shows is you cant read graphs and dont want to admit your errors.   I look forward to your name calling and deflection as you come to realize once again you failed at math.

If you do this for a living, you should be ashamed of what how badly you've done in this thread alone.  God forbid that anyone doing business with you take you at face value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine this - Climate deniers tend to be old, white and a little racist.

 

https://www.zmescience.com/ecology/climate/climate-change-deniers-racist-19062018/

 

A new study analyzed the connection between climate change denial and racism, two seemingly unrelated things, which do however share a strong correlation.

Climate change deniers as a group have been shown to share certain similarities in the past: they’re more likely to be old, they’re more likely to be white, and they’re more likely to lean towards the political right. According to this new research, they also share a nasty attitude towards other races.

 

Benegal found that white voters became 18 percent less likely than black voters to see climate change as a very serious problem over the course of Obama’s presidency — even after controlling for factors such as political partisanship, ideology, and education,

Ultimately, the more racial resentment people harbor, the more likely they are to disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose if you can't argue the facts, then you can whip out the ever-ready race card.  Predictably played, yet again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



×