Predicting the past

Originally posted by wildgrass
I'm not asking you to prove a negative (although it is perfectly reasonable to do so.) You are asserting that there is a statistically significant difference between modeled climate and observed climate. That would qualify as a positive result. Yet you appear to have no evidence to support it.

You have no evidence to support your claim. Show me the data. If you cannot just admit it. There is no shame in admitting the data is very difficult to find. I admit it. I wish it was easy to find, but it is not. Can you admit it?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You have no evidence to support your claim. Show me the data. If you cannot just admit it. There is no shame in admitting the data is very difficult to find. I admit it. I wish it was easy to find, but it is not. Can you admit it?

I am not making the claim - you are.

Climate models are nothing more than a guessing game right now. They are still overestimating how much co2 warms the planet. That is why they cannot predict the future accurately. - Metal Brain

Prove it.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Everyone on here that has tried to prove me wrong has failed. Most have posted links that show polls of ordinary people who are NOT climate scientists. For example, wildgrass thought he had a poll of climate scientists that proved the majority of them believe man is the main cause of GW. It was actually a poll of American Meteorology Society members. Any ...[text shortened]... the AMS. He proved nothing.

Try to prove me wrong if you can. Everyone has the chance to try.

Most cats do NOT like yarn. Prove me wrong.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
[You have no evidence to support your claim. Show me the data. If you cannot just admit it. There is no shame in admitting the data is very difficult to find. I admit it. I wish it was easy to find, but it is not. Can you admit it?

You are so reasonable! Does this come and go?

Originally posted by wildgrass
I am not making the claim - you are.

Climate models are nothing more than a guessing game right now. They are still overestimating how much co2 warms the planet. That is why they cannot predict the future accurately. - Metal Brain

Prove it.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/7/climate-change-models-wrong-predicting-rain-drough/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/10310712/Top-climate-scientists-admit-global-warming-forecasts-were-wrong.html

This Daily Caller link contains a graph to compare the data. Happy?

http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/28/climate-models-have-been-wrong-about-global-warming-for-six-decades/

Now, admit you were wrong.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/7/climate-change-models-wrong-predicting-rain-drough/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/10310712/Top-climate-scientists-admit-global-warming-forecasts-were-wrong.html

This Daily Caller link contains a graph to compare the data. Happy?

http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/28/climate-models-have-been-wrong-about-global-warming-for-six-decades/

Now, admit you were wrong.

Three stories from gutter journalism outlets, none of which actually say that climate models are currently overestimating the impact of CO2.

golf clap intensifies

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Three stories from gutter journalism outlets, none of which actually say that climate models are currently overestimating the impact of CO2.

golf clap intensifies

They don't have to say the obvious. Anybody can call any links gutter journalism. It takes a real man to prove it.

Hey captain obvious, the data is here for you.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png

Admit you are wrong.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
They don't have to say the obvious. Anybody can call any links gutter journalism. It takes a real man to prove it.

Hey captain obvious, the data is here for you.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png

Admit you are wrong.

I have asked you to explain that graph several times. The conclusion is wrong. Some very preliminary climate models from the early '80s predicted the exact temperature of the climate 15 years into the future. How is that wrong? That's incredible. Even 20 years in the future, they are less than 0.05 degrees off. Again, incredible. It sounds like the graph's author are saying the models are wrong, but how do they determine that when they look soo darn accurate. And more recent models from the 90's are even better. Check out the data!

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/articles/grl53276.pdf
http://www.popsci.com/is-climate-too-complex-to-model-or-predict
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-climate-models-predict-warming-20150128-story.html
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/howreliable.pdf

Originally posted by Metal Brain
They don't have to say the obvious. Anybody can call any links gutter journalism. It takes a real man to prove it.

Hey captain obvious, the data is here for you.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png

Admit you are wrong.

Haha, well, you challenge my manhood. That changes everything, doesn't it?

You haven't showed "the data," just a graph without context. What publication is the graph taken from? In any case, it doesn't back up your claim that current climate models are wrong.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/7/climate-change-models-wrong-predicting-rain-drough/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/10310712/Top-climate-scientists-admit-global-warming-forecasts-were-wrong.html

This Daily Caller link contains a graph to compare the data. Happy?

http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/28/climate-models-have-been-wrong-about-global-warming-for-six-decades/

Now, admit you were wrong.

The embedded link in the Daily Caller article contains a working paper by the Cato Institute, a libertarian lobbying firm. This group has been roundly criticized for biased claims about global warming [1].

But instead of stooping to your level, and dismissing any data coming from sources you don't like, I looked at the data. It is an interesting paper, and they actually do provide error bars and statistics unlike your other graph from that Dr Spencer website. As it turns out, when you actually calculate the statistical range of confidence in models, future predictions etc. "During all periods from 10 years (2006-2015) to 65 (1951-2015) years in length, the observed temperature trend lies in the lower half of the collection of climate model simulations..." So that quote is a way of negatively spinning the result found on page 5 which concluded that observed temperatures lie within the range of climate model expectations. Even the Cato Institute cannot fake the data.

p.s. just kind of as a sidenote, the criticism of their methods from other scientists concerns their "10 year window" method. I am not sure why, but apparently this skews the modeled results to favor a conclusion that the models are overestimating temp changes. Apparently, from other studies I've seen and posted above, that is not the case.

[1] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/apr/01/cato-institute/cato-institutes-claim-global-warming-disputed-most/

Originally posted by wildgrass
I have asked you to explain that graph several times. The conclusion is wrong. Some very preliminary climate models from the early '80s predicted the exact temperature of the climate 15 years into the future. How is that wrong? That's incredible. Even 20 years in the future, they are less than 0.05 degrees off. Again, incredible. It sounds like the graph's ...[text shortened]... 0150128-story.html
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/howreliable.pdf

The first link you posted is using surface temp data and that is unreliable. Even if it does predict future surface temp data all that really proves is that it can predict heat island effects. That fact it does not include satellite temps shows another cherry picking of data. That is the same old manipulation I have seen over and over again.

The second link you posted is about hindsight predictions (same as what I called predicting the past) so that is irrelevant.

I didn't bother reading the other two links because I expect more of the same. Next time you do this please just post 1 or 2 links that best attempt to prove your point. As it is right now, all you have done is post meaningless links that prove nothing.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Haha, well, you challenge my manhood. That changes everything, doesn't it?

You haven't showed "the data," just a graph without context. What publication is the graph taken from? In any case, it doesn't back up your claim that current climate models are wrong.

Graphs represent data, but if you really want to challenge what I posted (more data than what you ever have) go ahead and find the data that proves something. It is up to you to prove it wrong since you are nitpicking so much. The burden does not belong exclusively on me. Be fair and accept some of the challenge of finding raw data yourself. I think that is a reasonable expectation.

Originally posted by wildgrass
The embedded link in the Daily Caller article contains a working paper by the Cato Institute, a libertarian lobbying firm. This group has been roundly criticized for biased claims about global warming [1].

But instead of stooping to your level, and dismissing any data coming from sources you don't like, I looked at the data. It is an interesting paper, ...[text shortened]... -meter/statements/2009/apr/01/cato-institute/cato-institutes-claim-global-warming-disputed-most/

Once again you posted a link that cites scientist opinions which mean nothing. They are NOT climate scientists. Please do your homework next time before wasting my time and perhaps others.
That link is just another hack opinion piece that hopes the readers do not know the difference between scientists and climate scientists. You were duped again!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Graphs represent data, but if you really want to challenge what I posted (more data than what you ever have) go ahead and find the data that proves something. It is up to you to prove it wrong since you are nitpicking so much. The burden does not belong exclusively on me. Be fair and accept some of the challenge of finding raw data yourself. I think that is a reasonable expectation.

Not how it works. You make a claim, you back it up. I am not the one disputing thousands of experts in the field. A graph with unsourced data doesn't tell me anything. Before I would feel comfortable disputing the findings of climate scientists I would need thousands of hours of experience in the field. I'd rather research other things.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
The first link you posted is using surface temp data and that is unreliable. Even if it does predict future surface temp data all that really proves is that it can predict heat island effects. That fact it does not include satellite temps shows another cherry picking of data. That is the same old manipulation I have seen over and over again.

The secon ...[text shortened]... your point. As it is right now, all you have done is post meaningless links that prove nothing.

I asked you about the graph you posted. Is that surface temps or what? How do they conduct their study? On what basis do they draw their conclusion?